Ai IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) // ^^ .^^^4p. .^^ .<° «4 1.0 I.I 1^ Hi 1^ mil 2.2 1 s lifi lllllio 1.8 1.25 1.4 i'* ■* 6" — ► vj <^ /2 ^. O / s Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. USIiO (716) 872-4503 1 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canddian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques k Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques Th to The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographic&lly unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverlure de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque D □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured inl( (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encro de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D y □ D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or discortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 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 ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppidmentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet examplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D D D D D D □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou peiliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachet§es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule ddition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6td filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Th pc of fil Oi be th si( ot fil sii OI Tl s» Tl w di ei b( ri re rr This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X »X 32X «■« The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing hare are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Lgs images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et an conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the las: page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenfant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en tarminant par la dernidre page qui comporte unis telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols ^*> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, plan* les, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de rdduc^aon diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filn6 A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 A COMPLETE AND REVISED EDITION OF THE DEBATE ON TIIC JESUITS' ESTATES ACT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMOITS OTTAWA, MARCH, 1SS9 '1.!' 1 MONTREAL PRINTED BY EUSEBE SENEGAL & FILS 20 ST. VINCENT STREET ^V /-/ THE JESUITS' ESTATES ACT. Mr. FOSTBE moved that the House again resolve itself into Committee of Supply. Mr. O'BRIEN (Mcskoka). I beg, Sir, to move in amendment : That all after the word " That " be left out, and the following insarled in lieu thereof: " Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved, that au humole Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, seltin? forth : 1. That this House regards the power of disallowing the Acts of the Legislative Asseirblies of the Provinces, vested in His Excellency in Council, as a prerogative essential to the national existence of the Dominion ; 2. That this great power, while it should never be wantonly exercised, should be fearlessly used for the protection of the rights of a minority, for the preservation of the fundamental principles «f the Constitution, and for safe-guarding the general interests of the people ; 3. That in the opinion of this House, the passage by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec of the Aot entitled ' An Act respecting the settlemen'o of the Jesuits' Estates ' is beyond the power of that Legislature. Firstly, because it endows from public funds a religious organization, thereby viola- ting the undoubted constitutional principle of the complete separation of Church and State and of the absolute equality of all denominations before the law. Secondly, because it recognizes the usurpation of a right by a foreign a'uhority, 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 because the Act is made to depend upon the will, and the appro- priation of the grant thereby made as subject to the control of the same authority. And, thirdly, because the endowment of the Society of Jesus, an alien, secret and politico-religious body, the expulsion of which from every Ch.istian community wherein it has had a fooling has been rendered necessary by its intolerant and mischievous intermeddling 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." I should like to say, in the first place, that, in addressing the House upon this question, which I shall do as briefly as possible, I desire to avoid aa far as may be what may be called its religious side, and to confine myself to its constitutional and political aspect. I would further say that I would not have undertaken the serious responsibility of bringing before the House a subject of so delicate a nature, attended with so many difficulties, and so likely to give rise to angry feelings, and possibly to acrimonious discussion, were it not for the very strong sense which I have of what is due to my own convictions on the subject, as woU as to the convictions of those whom I represent in this House, and, I will venture to oay. to the convictions of the majority of the people of Canada. Now, Sir, one word wiib regard to my own position in the matter. Had the resolution or any resolutions by my hon. friend the member for North Victoria (Mr. Barron) come before this House in such a shape as to meet the wishes of those who think as I do on this subject, or had they come at such a period in the Session as to have given reason for the probability of a dis- cussion, I should not have interfered. I wish to say further. Sir, that though I was elected as a supporter of the present Administration, and a supporter of their policy so far as that policy could be known, yet, at the same time, during my election contest, and on several subsequent occasions, I said, with the full approbation of my )ri'b:iti()n of ii gi Biipporlors, and i iiimK ^v\u\ uio aiipri'uauDn oi !i givdt many who (lid not Hii'.'port mo its WL'll, hpciikiiii,' in anticipuliuu of .such uii AcL as that now un.lcr roviow, and Bpcuking in anticipation — because, as wo know, coming ovonts cast their shadowd before, and wo liad had on many occasions indications fi'ora various sources and in various quarters, of an attempt to do what I think is inconsistent with the rights and privileges of the people of this country — I said that in my ]ilace in Parliament I should, regardless of consequences, and regardless of whom it might make or whi in it might mar, I should oppose any attempt on the part of any nationality, or any pai'ty, or any race, or any religion, to exercise powers, or claim ])rivileges, not guaranteed by treaty, or not secured by subsequent Icgis-lation, I am, thoroforo, acting poifcclly consistently in moving this resolution, and in taking this stop, and not only so, but I would be recreant to my own principlas, and recreant to the pledge i gave to those who sent mo hero, wore I to fail in doing so. This resolution which I am about to place in your hands, Mr. Spea!;er, is, I think, suffloicnlly explicit, and sulficicntly comprehensive, to leave no doubts in tlic minds of everyone as to what it means. It declares in, I think, reasonable terms, the limit to which the power of disallowance on the ])art of the Dominion Govtu'imient should go, and I think, in view of the history of the last twenty years, it ought to meet the approba- tion of the House by the declaration that without a full and fearless exercise of the prerogative vested in His Excellency the Governor General by the British North America Act it is impossible that this country can maintain anything like a national existence; I contend. Sir, that while it may be possibly true that an Act may even be within the four corners of the British North America Act, and although it may bo within the lit.M'al interpretation of that Act, yet, that if it violates a fundamental principle of the Constitution — a supposition which is quite possible— or if it in any way intjrferes with the general interests of the Dominion, if it brings a principle to bear upon the public welfare which the majority of the people consider to be detri- mental, even though the Act may originate within that Province, then, Sir, I say tills Government has a rigLu and ought to interfere. I say that this House has the right, as the grand inquest of the nation, to discuss any question of great, national importance, and especially a question like this which has created a degree of atten- tion on the part of the people of this country, which certainly calls for legislative notice. In the resolution, Sir, I have endeavored, in brief terms, to point out how we consider that Act violates the Constitution, how it interferes with the rights and privileges of the people, and why it justities interference as being an Act prejudicial to the general interests of the people. Were I not to say a single word in support of the resolution, I think it woukl siand before the House as a sufficient manifesto of the sentiment which I and others in this House entertain in regard to the Bill which wo are now about to discuss. Now, Sir, we shall, of course, be met with the conten- tion that the Act passed by the L(\gislature of Quebec is one entirely within the pnrview of that Assembly — one with which neither this Parliament nor the Govern- ment of the Dominion has anything to do. Before entering into a consideration of tliat question, it would bo AvelJ briefly to review the history of the subject. We find, then, at the time of the Conquest the Society of Jesuits established and carrying on active operations in all thai part of the American continent which was under the jui-isdiction of His Most Chr"'tian Majesty the King of France; and far bo it from me to say one word derogatoiy to the manner in which that society performed •those great functions. Wo foun'd them here in possession of estates derived from ■throe sources — chiefly from grants direct from the Crown, from private individuals, and from purchases by funds out of thfiir own resources; but all were held by them, and necessarily held by them, according to the oonstilution of the society, for the -promotion of the objects they had in hand — these two, I think, mainly : the conver- ;sion of the heathen Indians, and the education of the people of New France. Far bo ;it from me. Sir, to say anything derogatory to the manner in which the first, at any rate, of those works were carried on by the Jesuit missionaries; and I pity the man wlio can roail witliDut cmrition of the lianlsliin^, llio (i'i;>Is and (lio r-nfT^;iin2:s on lui'od by tfio Jesuit missionaries in thoir ciroils to Chri-^tian'^.o (ho heatlion. It i.s h;iivl i'or \\n in Ihoso da^ys of luxury and comfort (o roalizo what hard-^liips and puUVringa those men "went through ■ hullbring-s which too oltcn mot their onlj' reward in a crown of marlvnjom, and which would onlv bo endured from tho hiijhe.sfc and noblest pcnso of duty. After tlio Conqiiosl, tlio larfxo estates which wore possessed by tlio Jesuit tSoeieties, as well as those possessed by other religions f-oeieties, wore referred to in the Act of Capilulalion ; and so far as tho terms of that Act go, that properly was secured to tliom. But, Sir, when tho Treaty of Paris came to bo made, Ave find that the reservation made bj' tho Act of Capitiihilion was not carricrl out. AVo liiid, on tho contrary, that while all tho rights of property of ])rivato individuals were le.^ervcd and maintained, those of tho various religious communities wore exjn'cssly exempted, and it was held that those properties had by o])eration of tho law passed into tho possession of tho Crown. "Wo need not pursue further tho his- toiyoftliG estates of the other rcligi(Mis bodies, because mo know, as a matter of fact, upon enquiry into the cliar:icter and operations of those various societies — tho Sulj)icians and others — that their estates were handed back to them, and havo remained in their undisturbed ]io--ossion over since. But with rogai'd to tho Jesuits a different view was taken ; a)id is it surprising that adiU'orent view should l)0 taken whon we consider who and what tho Jesuits of that day wore ? Although wo can only speak in terms of admiration of tlio operalioiis of those who v.'oi'o carrying on thoir work in New France ; yet the society at largo occupied a very dilforent posi- tion, and, Mr, Speaker, had I'ho heads of tlic society, elscwiiere than in Canada, boon sin^rlc-mindcd aiid !'[chearted, devoted men liko Hri'bouf and Lallemaiid, the history of the last century would have boon ditlerently written ; tho numo of Jesuit would not have become a byo-Avord of reproach throughout all the nations of lOurope, and tho great Galilean Chuich, onco the bulwark of tho French nation, renov/necl for its independence as well as its piety and learning, would not bo dependent on tho lingo ])rotensions of uilramontano Homo That sentiment, I dare say, will not moot with a|)proval on tho part of many members of this House. But those Avho have •Btudied with care tho history of iCuropo during tlie past three centuries, know that what 1 havo stated is the tiutli, know that no one has ever moi'o violently opposed the pretensions of the Jesuits than wi'itcrs of tho Roman Catholic Church itself ; and in reference to that, 1 would say that onoof tho oi-iginal grounds on which tho society was subsequently suppressed was tho fact of its interference with various other religious communities belonging to the Catholic Church. Well, Sir, we find that tho Jesuits' Estates were not restored ; and it is not sui-prising whon we con- sider tho jiosition of tho society. From the time of Queen l^lizabeth downwards tho Jesuits had been proscribed in tho British i-ealm, nivl why '.'' Because it was found that they were enemies of tho public poaco, that ihey wore determined by every possible means — means which I will not characterize hero, because it is not essential to tho argument to do so — to overthrow tho Protestant succession as established in England ; that they would lose no opportunity and hesitate at no means to accom- plish that object. Fortunately for the liberties of Europe and the peace of the world their efforts wero iin.^uccessful. A.t tho same momc.it, if they had not boon actually expelled, they were on tho point of being expelled from every country in Europe, just at the time when the question of the legality of their estates came before the law officora of the Crown ; — from Spain, tho country Avhcre ihoy had their origin, by tho Government of His Most Catholic Majesty tho King of Si)ain ; from Naples, under the very shadow of tho Pontitical chair. In France, thoy were brought before tho High Court of Paris, tho highest tribunal in France, ono might almost say in Europe, and there their transactions were a matter of judicial investigation, and the result of that investigation was, that they wore suppi-essed and expelled from France ; and, only a few years later, as everyone knows, in 1173, Pope Clement XIV, pronounced their suppression and abolition in terms which can leave no possible doubt as to his intention to do away with and aboliali the society ontiroly. I say, considerinfif all thcso thintract principle, this sociely should bo allowed to stand in a totally diifoiont position, and that Ihcy bhouid rooeivo compensation for estates to which they have no title, while similar rights are to be denioi the other bodies to which 1 have alluded ? Is it to be tolerated that the grants made by George III to the people of the Protestant faith in the Province aro to bo set aside as contrary to a principle, and yet the grar^s made lo tho Jesuits by tho King of Franco aro to be held sacrod so as to allow compensation to be made to them ? I do not think tho people of this country wdll agree to that contention ; but that is practically the conclusion to which we are asked to como in regard to this Bill. Another strong point in relation to this Bill is a matter peculiarly aflbcting tho Province of (Quebec. I have said that these lands were given to Canada in ti'ust for educational purposes. That trust was accepted and recognized in 1831, Tho grant was accej)tcd and contirmed by tho Legislature at that time, and it was ro- afYirmcd by the United Parliament of Canada in 185C, and again at a later jieriod. The fund was s|iecially set apart for superior education, and tho reference which is made to that in the British North America Act cleai-ly establishes that the Province of Ontario has an interest in that fund, and therefore that Province has somnthing to say in regard to the disposition of it, because it is the same estate which is dealt with, and that estate has never been ])arlcd with, but has been kept as a scparaio trust for special purposes ; and, by tho British North America Act, that trust ia accei)led and is made a part of the Dominion. The Province of Ontario Inu; a direct interest in that fund, and, therefore, that trust is not ono wich tho Province of Quebec as a right to deal with in any way whatever. It is a direct breach of trust, and a breach of a contract which was onterod into by themselves, and was broken v/ith- out any reason being adduced, :iny proposition being made, or any ground being shown. On that ground it is claimed that the power of disallowance should be exorcised on behalf of tho minority, because this grant of §400,000 is taken directly from the funds of tho Province to which all contribute alike; and to say that ^60,000 is voted as a sort of compromise, or as a bribe to tho Educational Board of the Protestants of tho Province, does not affect it. They are bribed with their owa money to agree to a grant to a roligious institution, and, if it is a compromise, it is a compromise of truth and a compromise of principle. Ono other ground of objection, and a very srong ground of objection, arises from tho terms of tho Act, in which tho leave of His Holiness the Popo of Rome is asked to dispose of tho estate which the Province had no right to dispose of. (!an they think they could hotter thoir right to dispose of that estate by asking tho consent of tho Popo ? Can they imagine, when they have no right to dispose of it, that they can supply tho defect in their title by asking the Pope of Eome to make it good ? Mr. Morcior says, in his correspondence : " Under lho?o circumstances, I deem it my duty to af k Your Eminence if you see any serious objection lo tho Government's selling tiio property, pending a ihial settlement of the question of the Jesuits' Estates." I must say that is a very remarkable sentence to be found coming from the repre- sentative of a Government in a British Legislature — " The Government would look on the iiroceeds of the sale as a special deposit to be disposed of here after, in accordance with the agreements to be entered into between the parties interested, with the sanction of the Holy See." And this is a sentence which shows that Mr. Mcrcier was so affected by tho atmosphere of Eome, where he was at that time, as absolutely to have lost his head — " As il will pinliiipa Ijd nouos.-ary ii|iuii tills inallcr to consult llio Lnpisltiiirc of our Pi ovinoe, which \a to bo coiivunod vory siiorlly, I resjioulfully s-oiicil an iinin •diato r<'i)!y." It was pofli!i])s Tipcc-isnry 1o consult tlio PrnviiK'idl Jjci^islaturo, hni it wng nb^olnfoly ncccMHUiy to consult the Pojio of Homo ; nnd this is tho nn.swor which is made : " Tiio Popn nl'ows the Onvf^nmont to rolnin tlio pronomls of lii- sain oftlm Ji-suil Kalatos as a ppoci^l (li'jto'.il to Ijo disposed of liiToal't'T willi tlm sancliun of tlin Ilniy St'o." It is contcnilod, nnd very lilccly it will bo contended in thin TFouso, llmt tho.G;vant of froo rolij^ioiis liberty to tho J{ornan Catholics ot'Qiiobcc at Ihc limo of tho Conrjiiost carried with it tho ri,s?lit of !ii)])('al to tho I'ope, thai this is incidentiil to Iho ri'^ht which was /^ranted to t hem. 1 say that is untonahlo, and tho Jiritish (Jovcrnmont took very pood caro that no such ideas should ontor into tho minils of tho p:>()|ilo ; bocauHo lliey took such t^ood caro to avoid that, that when tho Quebec Act was passed in n'.'l, thoy made a distinct provision in repaid to it. That Act is tho charter of tho lelipious as well as tho civil liberties of tho Iloman Catholics of Quebec, and thei'e wo find the following words : — '• It is declared that Ills Mn jesty's suhjocls profussinp; tho rniip;ion of llie Ciiurch of liomn, of and in Iho said Province of Qindiec, may liavo, hold nnd • nj(jy (lie Ireo ox''ici?« of llio rd nioii of tlio (llinrch of Romo, suhjocl lo lln! King's supremacy declared and eslahlished Ly an Aei undo in the first year of tho reisn ef Queen Klizabcth, over all the doniiiiioii und countries which llion did or tlioreafler should belong' to the Imperial Crown of this Healm." It is more child liberties of those Act which sot d's play to prctond, in tho faco of this Act under which the rclipious 3se ])coplo are pranlod, which would not otherwise have existed, this ^ivi. ,riii..ii n^^i. aside in their favor a groat part of tho Statute law of England, that they have any right to appeal to tho Popo or to protend that the Queen's supicmacy floes not exist, or that thoy have any privilege or any right in this country which is not controlled by tho Act of Supremacy. In order slill fui'thor to render it iinpossiblo that these people should entertain any idea that the}' were not subject to tho control of England in regard to these maflers, and to prevent any idea that thoy could appeal to tho Popo of Eomo in the past, or that they might take any such position at any time, 1 will quote tho instructions given to Governor Murray in 1762, when he received the following admonition : — " You are not to admit of any ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the See of Piome, or of any other foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction in tho Province under your jurisdiction." And again, in 1775, Governor Curloton is reminded :— " That all ajipeals to or correspondence with any foreign ecrlosiaslical jurisdiction of what nature or kind soever, be absolutely forbidden under very severe penalties." There can, therefore; bo no doubt that tho Act of Supremacy was in force, and that the rights and privileges guaranteed were controlled by the Act, and that for some 3'oars they were so controlled ; because, if I am not mistaken, no appointments were made by the Popo for many years subsequent to the Conquest. Of course, as time went on, the restrictions were relaxed and many things wore allowed to bo done which wore contrary to tho Act of Supremacy, but it is quite evident that that was toleration and not a grant. It is quite evident, I think, from these facts, that it cannot be consonant with the religious libeity guaranteed by the Quebec Act, to allow an appeal to tho Pope, or to recognize his jurisdiction as being of any authority in the alfairs of the Provinces. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is a contention which hardly needs to be made in this IIouso, it is a contention which ntad hardly more than bo stated, that to pass an Act of Parliament by the Lieutenant Governor, the Assembly 'I 10 and tho Legislative Council of a Province, and so expressed that the validity of that Act shall be dependent upon any foreign jurisdiction w'latevor — I say it is almost childish to contend that such an Act can be constitutional. I have heard it said that this correspondence forms no part of the Act. Well, if it is not intended to form part of the Act, what is it put there for ? A clause of the Act expressly makes it a part of the Act ; it would be a mere legal quibble to contend that it is no part of the Act, because without it the Act would be meaningless and would have no force at all. The agreement set forth in the correspondence is tho very essence of the Act. It may be contended as a legal proposition that it is not part of the Act, but that is a proposition which will never commend itself to the common sense of the people at largo. I say it is hardly worth while to argue that no Province, no Assembly, no Parliament under the British Crown, much less a Provincial Parliament, which has only a delegated power, can make an Act which is valid by the assent of any other power ; because the affirmative implies alco the negative, and if assent is necessary to make an Act valid, clearly inaction on the part of tho referree would condemn the Act. The Act is made absolutely dependent upon the will of a fo_*eign power. It matters not whether it is Pope or President, Kaiser or King, it does not matter who the authority is, it cannot be constitutional for the Parliament of this country to pass an Act which depends for its validity upon any foreign jurisdiction whatever. I have heard it contended that it would be a piocisely analogous case wore tho Province of Ontario to make a grant to tho Synod of tho Diocese of Toronto, and that the distribution of the grant was made subject to the control of the Archbishop of Canterbury. "Well, I think that such an Act would be absolutely invalid for the same reason, because the Provincial Legiblature has no right to delegate its power to a foreign power, or to do anything that would diminish its own powei", or the powt" of the Crown. But, moreover, there is no analogy between the two cases, because the Archbishop of Canterbury would still be a subject of the British Crown, whereas, in other cases, the foreign power is not so. But I do not think that the analogy is needed, because it cannot be contended that an Act is constitutional which depends for its validity upon the exercise of any foreign jurisdiction. But I will leave the constitutional question to bo argued by the lawyers, if they think it worth while to spend their time in doing so j but I ^m very eure of this, that whatever the lawyers may say, the people of this country will be satisfied with the proposition that it is unconstitutional, and that it ought to be unconstitutional, for any Parliament in this country to pass an Act whose validity is made to depend upon the affirmation or the ne^^ation of any foreign jurisdiction, no matter what that jui'isdiction may be. Now, Sir, in the resolution which I have read, we take another ground as one upon which this Act should be disallowed. We say it should be disallowed, because we contend that the endowment of the Society of Jesus, an alien, secret and politico-religious body, is fraught with danger to the civil and religious liberties of the people of Canada. Why do wo say that ? Because we find from the history of that society dur'ng the last 300 years, that wherever its operations havo been known they have in various ways interfered with the functions of civil government, they have interfered with the independence of other religious bodies, and they have taught a system of morality which cannot be inculcated generally without destroying, not only the independence, but also the morality of the people. It may be said, perhaps it will be said, that all these are idle tales. It may he said that the principles and practices of this society are so altered, in conformity with, modern usages and modern views, that the ideas which formerly prevailed, no longer have existence. But, unfortunately, there are too many modern writings, too many modem records, which contradict that view of the case, and make it impossible for us to believe that this society has so altered its principles, so departed from its previous practices, that it can now be recognized as a society which can be established and encouraged in this Dominion, or in any other country inhabited by Her Majesty's subjects. The weapons used by thissociety may possibly have changed. 11 There may be the same difference between what the society was at the time of the Conqxieat, at the time when it w is in its very worst position, at the time when the English Government were called upon to deal with it, and when the European Governments of Catholic countries, and also the Roman Catholic Church itself, wore obliged to suppress it — I say, there is the same difference between the society in those days and the society as it manifests itself to-day, that there is bet^veen the muskets used by Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham and tlfe rifles that were used by General Wolscly in Egypt ; the weapons may be diffei-ent, but the power behind them remains the same. If we may contrast the documents that we find in our library, if we may read the statements published within the last fifteen or twenty years, we find the same doctrines inculcated, we find there is no change such as would justify us in giving our assent to ihe establishment of this order in oui country. Sir, a Jesuit is a being abnormal ir his conditions ; he has no family ties, no home nor country. He is subject absolutely to the will of his superior. I say that such a system, thut such an order, being subject to an irresponsible power, must bo dangerous, as it always has been dangerous to every community in which it has existed. I admit there have been in this society men of high attainments, men of high moral worth, but that does not render the society less dangerous. It, has not rendered it less dangerous in the past, that wherever that th "re was work to be done, whether the work was good or bad, there were always the right men to do it. It is because we know from their own writings, from their practice, from their history in times past, that such is the case, that we say that in this free country it is not desirable to allow the existence of a society which inculcates principles more or less repugnant, not only to our civilization, but toeven^ principle that unites communities in every condition of life. For these reasons, ]m". Speaker, and for many others which might be adduced in respect to the constitutionality of the Act, we say it should be repealed ; we say the Government should exercise with discretion this power of disallowance, but that it should disallow this Act ; wo say that the majority of the people of the Dominion desire that this should be done. I know that the t'ote on my resolution this evening, or to-night, or to-morrow, or whenever it may be taken, will imply a very strong contradiction to this statement; but nevertheless, I am quite willing that the decision of this question should go from the juiy of this House to the jury of the people, and I venture to say that the time has come Judging not only by the passage of this Act, which is but one among a number of incidents, but by other events, when we have a right to say to hon, gentlemen in this House and to the people of this country, just as we said to our American cousins with respect to commercial affairs : " Canada is not for sale." So we say to them here, and we will say it elsewhere : " This Dominion must I'emain British and nothing else, and no power or authority, no jurisdiction, foreign, civil, religious or otherwise, shall be allowed to exercise power which will interfere with its affairs." Mr. Speaker, the resolution.is in itself, I think, so comprehensive that it is not necessary I should further occupy the time of the House in enlarging upon it. As I said at the begiuning,it is so clear and comprehensive that the country will understand what it means, and members of this House will understand what they are voting for ; and such being the case, not desiring to prolong the discussion, not desiring to say one word more than is absolutely necessary to sustain the position I take in reference to this question, I beg to place this motion, Mr. Speaker, in your hands. Ml'. RYKERT (Lincoln & NiAaARA). I think,Mr. Speaker,that if the predictions of the hon. gentleman are coircct as re- gards the feelings of the country upon this question,then it is absolutely useless for me to say one word to this House. I entirely dissent from the proposition or from the asser- tion of the hon. gentleman, that the great majority of the people of this country are in favor of the disallowance of this Act in question,and I unhesitatingly aseert that the ma- M 12 jority of tho people of this Doraiuioii are not in favor of itsdisallowonco. The lion, gen- tleman h IS tuken (h:it,<(round ; I cannot tell from wliat source ho gets his information, except from the public pre.ss,but I venture to say that if tho Province of Ontario were canvassed to-day, without prejudice, without religious bigotry,tho ])coplo fully under- h;tanuing the question, the vast m;ijorily of the poo])le would dissent from the proposition of tho hon. gentleman. "We are told outside of this House, and inside of this House, that certain religious bodies and certain bodies in this coantry are ip favor of disallowance. "We are threatened, Sir, by the public papei's and tho public organs thioiighout this country with decapitation, and with being driv?n from Parliament if Ave dare, upon the floor of Parliament, to assert our I'ight to declare th;\L his Act is constitutional. I am told, Sir, and the public press repeats it day after day, that no Ojangemcn dare stand upon the floor of Parliament and speak in favor of allowing this Pill to go into operation. I. Sir, am an Orangeman, and I will dare so to speak. I speak as an Orangeman, and I say : that I fulfil a'n the tenets of my order, and that I am just and right in supporting tho Government in the course it has taken. I speak upon this question because wo are toLl and threatened by papers that if we favor allowarec we will be cxtciminated from the order. Sir, it is one of the first principles of the Orango Order that there shsuit8 upon the alleged unconstilutionaliiy of the Estates Act.' This is a mislaice. The strongest ob- jection to both Acts is that they are conlrnry to the public interest. The prerogitive of disal- lowance is frequently exercised on this hisii ground against measures that are perfectly constitu- tional and intra vires of the Provincial I. gislalures." Sir, if that bo the case I will be prepared to show that it is not in accord with the views taken by those celebrated law ournals of the Province ofOntario, which took altogether another ground, and which ground has convinced the Globe newspaper that it was wrong in pronouncing in favor of the allowance of the Act. You will see from this that the Mail commences by declaring the Act ultra vires and unconstitutional, and, in the end, that it demands the disallowance of the Bill upon the ground that it is against public policy. It is hard to tell upon what ground that paper chooses to take its stand upon this question. Day after day we have been favored with the history of the Jesuits and their rascalities and misdeeds in days gone by, of which my hon. friend speaks so feelingly; and the Mail newspaper usually winds up by calling on the Protestants of Ontario to put an end to the encroachment of Popery in this country. On the 14th of March, we find this language, which I commend to my friends from Lower Canada : " If the British and Protestant element in Quebt^c will not save itself, we must try to save it for our own sakes. That ihe abandonment of Quebec to the Ultramontane and the Jesuit will be tlie death of Canadian nationality is clear enough. But Ontario will not be safe. Our eastern gate has already been opened by the perfidious hand of the vote-hunling politician, and French and Roman Caiholic invasion is streaming through. The French priest, it is true, cannot formally import into Ontario his Church establi!^hment and his system of tithes. But this matters little if he can thrust out the British population and plant in its room a population which will be under his away, and from which he can wring practically any payments which he thinks fit. The asses- sor, moreover, will be his creature, and he will be able to distribute the burden of loeal taxation between the faithful and the heretic preity much at his pleasure. He will, to all intents and pur- poses, detach eastern Ontario from the British and Protestant civilization, of which it now forms a part, and annex it to the territory of the French race, which is also the dominion of the priest. No distortion of facts by cophistical rhetoric, no hypocritical protests against race feeling, will hide from U3 either the gravity or the imminence of this result." After its long labor of the last three or four months in portraying the history and misdeeds of the Jesuits, this paper holds this question up as a sort of bugbear to frighten the people of Ontario into opposition to the Government, and finally winds up by coming out in its true colors and saying that they must prevent the encroachment of the Eoman Catholic Church and the French Canadians in Ontario. Now, we find that for a long time the late organ of some hon. gentlemen opposite was very strong on this question. It discussed it from all points of view, both on its merits and on its constitutional aspec<^a, and on several occasions it has taken a very strong stand in favor of the Bill being allowed, and in support of the contention of the present Grovernment. But while this strain runs through all the editorials, you will find in them a strong feeling against the Dominion Government, and a desire to excite against that Government not only the Protestants of Ontario, but the Orangemen as a body. "With that object in view it calls attention to the fact that on the 12th of July, which is a famous day in the history of Orangemen, the Tory Lieut. Goveriior of Quebec allowed the Jesuit Bill. That was done to inflame Orange feeling against this Government. It went on to say : ■' These citations clearly show that the Liberals, if thay were in office at Ottawa now, could not disallow the Jesuits' Estates Act without enormous inconsistency. With equal clearness these citations show that the Conservatives are not only free to disallow the Act, but are bound in consistency to disallow it if they believe it to be wrong in principle and unjust to the Protestant minority." □ x- r j Then, on the 4th of March, it pointed out the danger that this country was running into, and that the result must be the breaking up of Confederation. It says : of m that sepa wish Bill. acki Glob none Dol 15 " Again we ask, should the Bill be allowed or disallowed? A. Protestant of a practical turn of mind may well answer : ' I can't tell— it's six of one and half-a-dozen of tht otiier.' The truth is that the people of Ontario are at the cross-roads where they must decide either to continue with or gOjiarate from a Quebec that is ever becoming more thoroughly Roman Catholic. If Ontarians wish to perpetuate the Confederation they will quietly accept Sir John's allowance of the Jesuits' Bill. If they can't stomach that allowance they may as well face the truth like honest men and acknowledge that they really do not think the Confederation worth preserving. The course of the Globe has been, and will be, perfectly straightforward. We do not mean to blame Sir John Mac« nonald " Do you believe that ? I do not, for one :— " We do not mean to blame Sir John Macdonald if he stands by his disallowance theories and vetoes the Bill. We will not in any way aid any persons who may endeavor to excite race and creed passions over the affair. If the people of Ontario hold great meetings to press for dis- allowance, and ifjhey otherwise signify that they are sincerely desirous to enter upon a serious struggle with Quebec, we will advise them that the end can be nothing else than the destruction of the Gonfederalion, and that it would be incomparably better for all concerned that 'he Federal compact should be quietly dissolved now than dissolved after and in consequence of a long, bittei' conflict that would be. at best, a savage verbal struggle, and at worst one marked by riot, blood- shed and civil war." These were the predictions of the late organ of the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, and, if the consequences were to be such as the Globe newspaper predicted, one would suppose that the Government of the country were justified in allowing that Bill. But, Sir, on the 16th of March, a day, I suppose, ever memorable in Eoom No 6 in this House, we find that the Globe newspaper made the somersault, and I venture to assert that no public paper in this country ever made such a somersault. We have also the opinions of other papers. I will only read a few, and I do this, not with the view alone of being heard in this House, but I have to answer to my constituents, and I want to p'ace my case before them should I ever ask them for their suflfrages again. The London Advertiser of March 14, says : " From the quotation given by Dr. Grant from Mr. Mercier's speech in movinpf the Legislature into Committee on the resolutions, it is clear that the purpose was not to acknowledge any autho- rity in the Pope in the legislative affairs of the Province, but to secure finality in a dispute long pending." The Hamilton Times of October 19, after waking up to the sudden conversion f the Globe^ deals with the question from the constitutional point of view, and I cor ^mend its language to my hon. friend from Muskoka : •' By some it is claimed that the mention of the Pope's name as a party to the Bill renders it unconstitutional. We cannot decide so intricate a question as that, though it appears to us that the Pope stands in the same relation that contractor Onderdonk or any o her foreigner would occupy with respect to the payment of public funds. So far as our light goes we should oppose the disallowance of the Bill, though we reserve the right to hear and consider evidence on the point that the Bill is unconstitutional. The idea that Ontario and the rest of the Dominion will have to supply the money to pay the Jesuits should not have weight in the discussion." I may quote from another organ of hon. gentlemen opposite, the Belleville Ontario, of the 19th of March, which gives the Globe a certificate of character : " The vacillating policy of the Toronto Globe of late years on almost every public question is without precedent in Canailian journalism. Us latest somersault on the Jesuit Bill is enough to restore the founder of this ever-powerful paper to life again. The Globe's i\op over has caused a feeling among the Liberals at Ollawa little short of disgust for the men who at present are respon- sible for its policy, if such it can be called." Now, Sir, I propose briefly to show — and this is a point my hon. friend has avoided — the feeling in the Province of Quebec on this important question ; because, while I 'i . I approcialo the effoi-t of my hon. friend to defend the rights of the jvioplo of Onlurio, I think talso ho might have had something to say wilh regard to tho opinion of the minority in the Province of Quebec. Wo heard nothing from the hon, gontloman concerning tho Bill of 1887. lie steadily avoided that question, and con lined hie* argument wholly to the Bill no'v under consideration. Wo are hero to-day for tho purposo of considering whether or not this Bill should bo allowed or disallowed ; but behind that question is another one. Should tho Bill of 1887, incorporating this aociety, have been allowed or disallowed? The hon. gentleman said nothing about that. No ono has spoken about it in Parliament or out of Parliament. It was allowed to pass, and thus wo recognized, in not disallowing that measure, tho right of tho Province of Quebec to inci)rporato tho Jesuits. Having done so, the question arises, is it just and right to go further, and supplement that measure by giving money to this order ? What is tho opinion of the people of ho Province of Quebec on that h^ubjcct ? I can appeal to tho leader of tho Third party for his views. I find throughout tho whole of this controversy on this question, that the newspaper controlled by my hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell), supported tho Mercier Goverumont. Although ho pointed out that such an Act was inexpedient, ho always took the ground that tho Bill was a tiiir ono in tho interests of the country. Mr. MITCH FjLL. That is good authority. Mr. RYKERT. Very good, but 1 want to givo a better ono. Mr. MITCHELL. Question. M. EYKERT. I will give the authority of the Montreal Gazette, which I look upon as a good authority, expressing the L,jinion of the English-speaking people of the Province of Quebec vc!y fairly. The G^a^e^^e has had several editorials on the question, from ono of which I propo.-eto quote a few observations, in order to satisfy at any rate, tho people of the Province of Ontario, that while they are so exercised about tho rights of the minority in Quebec, the minority in that Province, which is well able to take care of itself, has taken no exception to the legislation passed : '« Excepting the Huntingdon Gleaner, vre are not aware that any newspaper in this or any olhpr Province ol'lhe Dominion interested itself in the matter. The Protestant Committee of the Council of Public Instruction silently acquiesced on securing its sixty thousand dollars. There was a slight ruffle as to how to apply the money, but that was all. Tho Proteilant members of the Legislature did not take ihe trouble to divide the House upon it; the leading spirits of Mr. Mercier's Protestant following thought it a very reasonable measure, and not ono word of dissent was heard from anybody, clt-rical or otherwise. The Bill in its various stages appeared in the telegraphic summaries of the newspapers of the Dominion, with no more emphasis than any bill to incorporate a trading company." So that you see while this matter was being discussed in the Quebec Legislature, and while the people were made awaro of what was going on from day to day, and the minority of Quebec had every opportunity of expressing their dissent and making known their opposition, if there was anything wrong in the Bill,^ no exception was taken by them either on constitutional grounds or on grounds of public policy. The Gazette gees on further to say that : " They fe t that the true claimant for this properly was the Roman Catholic Church in general, and that church was represented by its ecclesiastical head, and not by a recently incor- porated body of ecclesiastics governed by a foreign general, no matter how estimable ihey might be." I commend this to the attention of the hon member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) It " Now, in the face of these threats of extra provincial intervention, Roman Catholics, no matter what they thinlc, must, in self-respect, close their ranks." That is the opinion of a Protestant paper in the Province of Quebec. — " If there be one principle clear in a Parliamentary Government, it is the right of the reprcsbn- tatives of the people to dispose of the money of the people. It is one of these self-evident prin- ciples which, if men's minds were not heated by religious and political passion, uo one would dream of disputing." But there is another authority which I will cite, because I find that persons belonging lo the same church are trying to foment discord and religious disturbance in Ontario on this question. I will cite the opinion of the Kev. Dr. Campbell, of the city of Montreal, Presbyterian clergyman, who discussed the question in all its merits. In a letter published some time ago he says : " That is reason sufTicient why we in Canada, Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, should be very slow to afford them any encouragement in our country. But we failed — we who should have vigorously protested against their establishment and endowment^o make our voices heard at the moment when our views might have influenced the situation. The Protestant representa- tives in the House of Assembly did not oppose the two measures as stoutly as they ought to have done, and the people failed to petition the Legislature against the Bills. Not havintj availed themselves of their constitutional rigpts while the measures were under discussion, they virtually put themselves out of court. It is not fair either to the local authorities or to those at Ottawa •'or us now to make an outcry. Mr. Mercier was justified in concluding, while the Bills were before the Assembly, that there was no very strong sentiment against them in the Province, or else the Legislature would have been flooded with petitions against them, as it always is when there are proposals before it directly affecting the people's pockets. Nor have we any right to feel greatly disappointed that the Federal authorities did not put themselves in an embarrassing position to shield us from the consequences of our own neglect of our interests, when they could urge a constitutional plea to rid themselves of responsibility in the matter." That is the opinion of a gentleman whose opinion is worth having, and who addressed a letter some time ago to the Montreal Witness in which he expresses those views. But let us look at what was done in the Legislature. 'We find that in the Legislature, when the matter was under discussion, different members spoke upon the question. We find that Hon. M. Lynch, a Protestant member, spoke, and I have taken this extiact from the paper to show that he who represented the interests of Protestants was fully alive to the importance of the question under discussion and expressed his opinion at the time : " Notwithstanding what may be thought in some quarters, there is nothing in the Bill alarming in its character. We are living in an age where wisdom prevails, living in an age in which freedom is supposed to exist the world over, and nowhere in the dominions of Her Majesty does liberty prevail more than in the Province of Quebec. *'* Is it possible that the intelligent public opinion of the Province of Quebec should deny those Jesuit Fathers the civil rights we have granted to every one else ? " Then we have the opinion of several gentlemen in the Upper House. Among them, Mr. Starnes, who said : " I approve of the Bill as it is, for that question should have been settled long ago. Protestants and Catholics ought to be satisfied with the manner in which the question is now settled." The Hon. David Eoss also said : " Some newspapers have shown me up as the fripnd of the Jesuits and as a bad Protestant, because I lent my assistance to the settlement of this question. 1 will answer it by saying that I am neither a friend nor an enemy of the .Jesuits. We li.id to deal with a question of justice, and 1 gave it my support. The Protestants themselves entertain the belief that the Jesuits deserve 2 ; Ml,' m 18 :! 1 i i i somo conip(3iisalion for llie oslates taken away from Ihem. Moreover, the Protestants whom I represent in tho Cabinet, arc well satislled with tiie settlement of this question, as you have heard the hon. councillor for Wellington express it, and with the indemnity which falls to their lot." So that you will see Protestnnt public opinion to-day in Quebec ia strongly in favor of tho ]5ill and tho settloment inado, and ngainst disallowance. I am glad to see also that while tho Orange body has seen fit to pass resolutions as a body in favor of disallowance, there are some Lodges in the Province which have had the courage of their convictions, which have stated iho question broadly and havo not seen fit to endorse the action of the Grand Lodge. 1 find at a mooting of L. O. L., 152, Dor- chester township, a strong resolution was passed condemning the Quebec Govern- ment for passing the Jesuits' Estates Bill, and expressing the opinion that a number of tho Orange lodges had acted ui nsely in condemning tho Dominion Government for not disallowing the measure, as they firmly believed that if an injustice had been done, redress would be better secured by the various Protestant denominations taking united action in pressing tho claims of the Protestant body. Tho resolution goes on further to express tho hope that that course will bo followed, so that the legal opinion may be tested. As I said a few minutes ago, an effort has been made to fire the public mind in the Province of Ontario by calling on the people to form orga- nizations with a view of putting down tho Roman Catholic religion in that Province and also throughout this country. We find that Mr. Hughes has taken a very active part in this matter. I mention him because, day after day, his name is cited as an authority on the subject, and only last night I find it reported that ho addressed a meeting in the Pavilion in Toronto upon this important question. But, after reciting, as my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) has done, all the misdeeds of the Jesuits, he winds up by asking tho people of this country to establish an organi- zation similar to one existing in Scotland, and proposes the following as the objects : — "The olijccts of the Alliance are:— (a) The defence of our common Christianity; {b) the exposure of the errors of I\iuory and Inlidelily ; [c) Iha insilriicUon of Roman Catholics in Bible truth ; and (d) the maintenance and promotion of the great Scriptural principles ot the Scottish Iteformation. " The membership of the Alliance is composed of persons of all Iho Protestant denominations, and various lolitical opinions, who are thoroughly agreed tuat tho Papacy is an enemy to national and social prosperity, and to personal freedom, and who are resolved to resist the aggressions in the Empire by every possible means." So you will see that tho sum and substance of the arguments of those people in the Province of Ontario is, first, to inflame the public mind by reciting historical remi- niscences, and then to arouse a certain feeling in favor of tho Protestant religion. I find, also, that the Rev. Mr. Ross says : " The Church of I^ome in the Province of Quebec is established and endowed in violation of the said princijilo. Wo hereby request the Dominion Government to lake steps to secure the revision of the BriLish North America Act, so as to lead to the disestablishment and disendowment ol said church in said Province." It is thus evident that nearly all these gentlemen ran in the same direction. I am glad, however, to find that, conspicuous among many people in the Province of Ontario, are men of larger minds, men such as the Rev. Principal Grant, who has expressed himself on several occasions in regard to this matter, and has published a letter in the public press which I will do him the justice of quoting. He is as much interested in the welfare of Protestantism as anyone in tho Province of Ontario, and ho has seen fit to discuss this question on ics merits and to publish his views in the press. He says : " If the matter was to bo settled at all, and before giving an opinion on that point, let us remember that the great majority of the people of Quebec are Roman Catholics. I do not see what =!;. 19 else Mr. Morcicr could liavn donn '.'mn require tlin sanction of llio Pope to llio Jjargain. It may senm astonishing to Protijslniils Hint Roman (lalliolics should acknowli'dgo a man living in Home (IS the head of their church. But they do. Protestants nmst accept that fact in the same spirit in which all facts should be accepted." So it 18 clear tliat ho lins not the same dread of the Pope exorcising hi!^ olorical powers, as far as this Act ia concerned, as some gontlomon have. Ho goes on : " The ffrant of money to the Jesuits. But the money was not awarded, nnd hns not been given to Ihe Jesuits. It has been given to the Homan Oiilholic (lliurcli. Doubtless the Jesuits will gel some of it. Mr. Mercier, in his speech, quotes a li'tler, dated 1 1th October, 1^84, from the Secretary of the Propaganda to the General of the Jesuits, promising on the part of the Pope that when the matter was settled they would got a share, the proportion to be subsequently deter- mined." The House will thus see that there are persons who rogard this question from a ditferent standpoint; as also, in this city of Ottawa, tho Ruv. Mr. Horridge, speaking on the question, stated that it was purely a question of money, and that he could see no reason why there should bo any intcrforence on tho part of the Government with a Bill which was not, in his opinion, H^trimontal to the interests of the country or to the policy of the country. The faci is that tho people are not thoroughly informed on this question, p^din the papers from day to day the historical references are not correct. In fact, they are just as incorrect as some of those which my hon. friend (Mr. O'Brien) made to-day, as I shall point out later. Tho Ministerial Asso- ciation in Toronto is composed of a number of men of all denominations, and they could not find out whether the Jesuit Order has ever been suppressed in this country or not, and, after searching for a Week, they could not come to a conclusion. And yet these are the men who pretend to guide public opinion. I don}' their right to do so, or I say, at all events, that, before they do so, they should first inform themselves as to the facts. Then I find that a resolntion was moved by Dr. McVicar and seconded by Dr. Campbell, and what is asked by that resolution is to have a certified copy of the Bill sent to the Queen, and then they say she will disallow it. Why, they do not seem to understand the constitution of this country, when they think that an Act of the Province of Quebec can be sent to the Queen for disallowance, whereas it is only the Acts of this Parliament which are subject to disallowance by tho Queen. Tlioy are in absolute ignorance of tho provisions of the British North America Act. Now, 1 do not intend to defend the Jesuits, but I am going to quote a few autho-ities to show that, in this country, at all events, they are not as bad as my hon. friend (Mr. ■O'Brien) makes them out to be. In his speech, ho said ho did not propose to discuss tho course of the Jesuits in this country, but only to refer to their misdeeds in the past. I will quote from one or two articles on that subject, because it is just as well to understand what Protestants think in regard to the Jesuits. As I said, I do not pretend to make any elaborate argument on the subject, or to defend tho Jesuits or their ac^^ but I find that public men in this country, persons who have written on this question here and in England, aro of one accord that the Jesuits of to-day are not the Jesuits of 100 years ago. That is where my hon. friend goes astray. Ho refers to their intriguing in Europe, and to their determination to u]>set every State in Europe, and to various acts of theirs which will not commend themselves to anyone ; but he should have also referred to those authorities who took an entirely (litterent A'iew of the subject. In Parkman's work I find this testimony given to tho J esuits : " The lives of these early Canadian Jesuits oUnst the enrnestncss of tliclr faith and the iiilonsily of Uioir zeal ; but it was a zoal bridled, curbed, and ruled by a guiijins iiand. Their inarvellous training in equal measure kindled enthusiasm and controlled it, roused, into action a mighty jwwer, and made it as subservient as those groat material forces which modern science has learned to awaken and to govern. They were drilled to a factitious humility, prone to find ■m IT 20 lii; ulteranco in oxprossions ofsolf-deprociation and self-scorn, winch one may often judge unwisely when he comlcinns thorn as insincere. They were devoted l)nlievers, not only in the fiindamenlal dogmas of Home, but in tlioso lesser matters of fuitli which heresy despises as idle and puerile superstitions. One great uini eii;^rossod their lives. For the greater glory of Ood lliny would act or wait, dare, auITer or die, yet all in unquestioning subjection to the authority of the Superiors, In whom they recognized the agents of divine authority itself." Then I find that Macaulay — and I do not suppose many in this ITouBe will question his authority — in his '^ History of England," spoke of those men as follows : — " No religious community could produce a list of men so variously distinguished ; none had extended its operations over so vast a space; yet in none had there been such perfect unity of feeling and action. There was no region of the globe, no walk of speculative or active life in which Jesuits were not to be found. They guided the councils of Kings. They deciphered Lathi insc'iptions. They observed the motions of Jupiter's satellites. They published whole libraries, controversy, casuistry, history, treatises on optics, alcaic odes, editions of the fathers, madrigals, catechisms and lamj)oons. The liberal education ofyoutli passed almost entirely into their hands, and was conducted by them with conspicuous ability. They appear to have discovered the precise point to which inlellcotual culture can be car i' without the risk of intellectual emancipation. Enmity itself was compelled to own that, in the t of managing and forming the tender mind, they had no equals." That seems to be entirely in opposition to the views which have been expressed by .my hon. friend, and the various assertions us to their practices in the mother country. But we have an authority in this country which I think will also be received in this House. I refer not to the organ of the Third party, but to the Montreal Qamette, which, on the 25th June last, speaking of the Jesuits, and knowing well what they j'^o in the Province of Quebec, says : " There is probably no country in the wo;!d in which the Society of Jesus has enjoyed so fair a reputation and so large a share of goodwill from the people generally, without distinction of creed, as have fallen to their lot in Canada. Their piety, humanity and courage are associated ^with the most heroic and romantic periods in our annals. ' The story of their trials and triumphs 'on this continent, and especially within the limits of our own land, is one of the most interesting ,and instructive in the records of missionary labor. ' If we e.\cept certain works and ambitions which marked some passages in their career, the members of the order in Canada have never forfeited that respect which is due lo the faithful prosecution of noble aims." So you see that we have testimouy from the Province of Quebec that at least they have some friends in this country, and that they are not looked upon in the same light as they were in the mother country and on the continent. Now, Sir, one of the arguments of my hon. friend was that the Jesuits are hostile to the Eoman Catholic Church. Well, I have read different sermons, that of Father Hand in Toronto and Father Whelan in Ottawa, and I find that they take the view that the Jesuita are •m accord with the Church of Eome, as is evidenced by t'je telegram sent some time ago to Mr. Mercier. He read this telegram, at Lapralrie, on July 22, from Eome : " "^"^ ?.""°i '^'^ c'l"^'' a rebel against the Bishops of the Province of Quebec for havinff :^ncorporated the society of Jesus, when the Holy Father allowed its members to seek incorpor- .So you see that is evidence that they are entirely in accord with the Church of Itorae, and are not in the same position as they were in 17t3 when they were .suppressed by the Pope. But there is another evidence which my hon. friend did not refer to. Wnen they were restored in 1814 we find in the Pope's Bull that he ,I» Parliamont to drive them out of the country. And what did members say ? Tiioy (counted out tho House, they laughed at him, and thoy left him there nuiking a Bpooch uixju thia quesliuii. Then, in order not to bo outwitted ho placed a notice in tho paper askiiij; Mr Disraeli, at that time at tho head of tho Govornmout, what ho intended to do ? Mr. Disraeli said : " There is no (loul)t ilmt tliero urn in this country momhors of the Society of Jesus, com- monly called .Idsuils, and there ir also no iloulit llml their prosoiico in this country is under 10 Geo. IV., known as tho llomun Catholic Knmiicipation Act, ii niisdoniounor. During, however, the period which has elapsed since tho passing of that Act, now nearly half a century, tho Govorn- nient of this country has, I believe, in no iiistaiice— none, at lenst, known to myself— proceeded against any Jesui! for committing a mlsdoiii(!anor under its prcavisions, and, so far as Her Majes- ty's present advisers aro influenced by tho circumstances with which they are acquainted, tlie same policy will continue to prevail. At tlie same time, I hog it to l)e understood that the pro- visious of tho Act are not looked upon i)y tier Majesty's Government as heing obsolete, but, on the contrary, ure reserved provisions of law which lin-y are prepared to avail themselves of if necessary. " l^Iow, that does not look like tho English people being opposed to tho Jesuits j it does not look as if they were undermining tho State and tho Protestant religion in England ; on tho contrary, thoy aro performing a good work, and they are not the mischievous people that my hon. friend says thoy ure now. But Mr. WluiUey wa» not going to DO outgonoralled again. Ho moved again on July 13, 1875, a motion for a committee, as follows : — i ii; " To enquire into and report to this House as to the residence in this country, in contraven- tion of tho Act 10 Goo. IV, of any persons being members of the Order of Jesus, commonly called Jesuits, and as to the names, present residence, and ostensible occupation of such persons ; also, as to Iho amount and nature of any property vested in, or at the disposal of such persons for the purpose of promoting the objects of such society or order, and, so far as may be practicable, to enquire into and report as to tho doctrine, discipline, canons, laws or usages under which such order is constituted, and by which it is directed and controlled. " What was the result of that motion ? It was that he could not get a seconder for it. After making a speech and showing that the number of priests had increased from 447 in 1829 to 1,967 in 1875 — these are exactly the figures he used at that time — notwithstanding tho violent speech he made on that occasion, the people of England said : We have no fear of tho Jesuits. To day I venture to assert that if anyone will consult history, will look at the Order in England, will visit their colleges at Stoneyhurst and other places, they will find evidence of the fact that the greatest men to-day have been educated there, including Protest-ants, and men who are as strong in their Protestant faith as is the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien). That is all I intend to say Avith respect to the Jesuits of England. I do not justify the acts of the Jesuits, but I do say that the men to-day are not the men of 1 00 years ago, that they do not possess the same feelings and intentions in regard to destruction of British power as they did in those days. Todayyou will find those men are desirous of pursuing their holy work without the interference of politicians. The hon. gentleman has referred to the history of Canada. He has not, however, placed altogether a proper construction on the Act of 1774, 14 George III, c. 83. The hon. gentleman read section 5, but he might also havo road section 8. Section 5» as stated by the hon. gentleman, goes on to say : !|- 23 " Hon. 5. Aiiid li-r lli" inures poiruot Bociirily ansls of the Dominion generally. And that in such report or reports he gives his reasons for his opinions." These rules havo been endorsed by all legal gentlemen in thia House, and I think no person can deny that they embody the true and correct principle. We alHO find, by the Sessional Papers of 1877, page 102, that the hon. member ror West Durham recommended that the question as to ultra vires, with rnterence to t'le Escheats Bill, should be referred to the Supieme Court, Again, in 1 876, the hon, gentleman, in regard to an Act respecting the Legislative Assembly, said : " It appears to the undersigned that several of tho jirovisions aro open to very serious ques- tions as being ultra vires of a Local Legislature, but almost all of lliem are contained in an Act of the Legislature of Quebec, upon the same subject which was left in its operation. There are indeed some new provisions, but it could not be advisable upon the principle upon which the Quebec Act was allowed to advise the disallowance of the Act by reason of the insertion of these provisions, and the undersigned feels bound '.o recommend, that following the precedent referred to, the Act should be left in its oi)eralion ; it being (juite possible for those who may object to its constitutionality to raise their objections in the courts." There we have two of the highest legal authorities in this country, as high almost as can be found in any country, the hon. First Miaister and the hon, member for West Durham, laying down the principle that upon the question of the constitu- tionality of an Act the decision of the courts ought to be invoked. We find the Mail of 5th February endorsing that view in the following words : — " There is nothing in the British North Americi Act to limit the exercise of the veto power. That it shall not be exercised merely on grounds of ordinary policy, unless the Provincial Legis- lature has exceeded its jurisdiction, is a good genera' rule, which once more we commend the Government for observing. The authority given to the Provincial Legislature in certain classes of subjects, carries with it, like all authority, a liberty of error which must be respected, so long as the legal power is not exceeded and the error is not manifestly subversive legally or morally of the principle of the constitution or of the great objecH of the Stale." I havo pointed out that the Mai/ in a former article contended that this Act was ultra vires, and therefore, the courts should be invoked to decide upon its constitu- tionality ; and wo havo affirmed that principle in this House over and. over again. It was affirmed in regard to the Streams Bill, the consensus of opinion being that in regard to legislation which was claimed to be unconstitutional, the proper course for the Government to adopt was to let the measure go into operation, and leave those attected by it to contest its constitutionality before the courts. I commend to this House the opinion expressed by the hon, member for West Durham upon that ques- tion, and 1 think hon, gentleman opposite will hardly dissent from it. It is a propo- sition which, I think, was well conceived, and which, though perhaps not accepted by the House at the time, was in entire accord with the views laid down in 1868 by tliQ right hon. leader of the Clovernmont. The hon, member for West Durham said: " Gan any member of this House, who is a real, live lover of the Federal system, find any jios- sible objection to this proposition? Where th'^ law and the general inleresls of the Dominion imperatively demand it, then and then only shall the power of disallowance be exercised ; but it would impair the Federal principle and injuriously affect the autonomy of the institutions of our several Provinces were this power to be exercised on subjects which are within the exclusive control of the Local Legislatures on Ihu ground that in the opinion of His Excellency's advisers, or of the Canadian Parliament, any such legislation is wrong. ' * I admit that, under the consti- tution of Canada and the Provinces, the Local Legislatures have the power to deprive the subject of his properly under these conditions, but I say that if we import into the Constitution of the Con- federation a restriction upon that power and declare it, as a majority in this House propose this nighl to declare, we will declare it to be the right and duly of the Government, whenever the power is to be exercised, to nullify its exercise by disallowing such Acts," 1 ' Hi 28 I,?' I II 1 ■' , On that occasion the Government declared that the Act should bo disallowed, on the ground that it interfered with private rights ; but the general principle laid down \7&a that in all matters of unconstitutionality, the court should be invoked and nobody else. "VVe have also a case almost in point in this country, the case of th© New-Brunswick School Law. When that case arose, members of Parliament who were versed in constitutional law expressed opinions which would be entirely in accord with the action taken by the Government of the day. That school law was one to compel the Eoman Catholics of New Brunswick to contribute to a system of educa- tion which they could not conscientiously avail themselves of. It was a law which aflfected a large class of the community, and which that class contended interfered with its rights. That Bill was allowed to go into operation, and was not interfered with by the Dominion Government for reasons given by the First Minister, who says : " The Provincial Legislature has exclusive powers to maice laws in relation to education. It may be that Ihe Act in question may cct unravorably on the Catholics or other religious denomi- nations, and if so It is for such religious bodies to appeal to the Provincial Legislature which has the sole power to grant redress. " Thf! assumption by the Provincial Legislature and Government of Canada of the right to seek the imposition of further limitations of the pov*ei:3 of the Provincial Parliaments is subversive of the Federal character of the Union, tending to the destruction of the powers and independence of the provincial law to the centralization of all power in the Parliament of Canada. " The people of New Brunswick cannot, and will not, surrender their rights of self-govern- ment within the limits of the constitution." He went on further to say : " In the case ,.i measures not coming within either of these categories the Government would be unwarranted in interfering with local It^gisiation. " In the present case there was not a doubt that the New Brunswick Legislature had acted within its jurisdiction, and that the Act was constitutionally legal and could not be impugned on that ground. "On the second ground which he had mentioned in which he considered the D)minion Government could interfere, it could not be held that the Act in any way prejudicially affected the whole Dominion, because it was a law settling the Common School system of the Provmce of New Brunswick alone. " The Government of the Dominion could not act and they would have been guilty of a violent breach of the constitution if, because they hold a different opinion, they should set up their judgments against the solemn decision of a Province in a manner entirely within the control of that Province." There is the decision of the First Minister, entirely in accord with tnat of Mr. Justice Taschereau. Judge Taschoroau adopts almost the very language of the First Minister in the case I have referred to, the Queen vs. Severn. It seems to me that, that case is on all fours with the case before the House. The hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Coatigan) moved the following resolution in this House in 1872 :— " That the Local Legislature of New Brunswick in its last Session, in 1871, adopted a law respeating Common Schools forbidding of any religious education to pupils, and that that prohibi- tion is opposed to the sentiments of the entire population of the Dominion in general and to the rehgiousconviclionsof the Roman Catholic population in particular:— That the Roman Catholics of New Brunswick cannot, without acting unconscientiously, send their children to schools established under the law in question and are yet compelled like the remainder of the population. to pay laxes to bo devoted to the maintenance of those bchools;— That the said law is unjust, and causes much uneasmess among the Roman Catholic population in general disseminated throughout the whole Dominion of Canada, and that such a slate of affairs may prove the cause of disastrous resulisto all he. Confederate Provinces ;-and praying Hts Excellency in consequence at the earliest possible period to disallow the said Now Brunswick School Law ; In that debate the whole question was thoroughly discussed. The Globe thus com- mented on it : 29 " The question so far was exclusively a local one, and it would have been welL if it could have been (ought out and settled in New Brunswick, as it was in past years in Ontario and Quebec. But iha Catholic minority determined to make an appeal to the Dominion Parliament, on the ground thai by the Confederation Act they were secured in the rights which they allege have now been taken away." The hon, member for "West Durham (Mr. Blake) moved in amendment to that reso- lution of Mr. Costigan, declaring that it was expedient that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be taken : " That this House regrets that the School Act recently passed in New Brunswick is unsatis- factory to a portion of the inhabitants of that Province, and hopes that it may be so moiifled during the next Session of the Legislature of New Brunswick, as to remove any just grounds of discontt^t that now exist ; and this House deems it expedient that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in England, and, if possible, the opinion of the Judicial Committee of th^ Privr Council, should be obtainp'd as to the right of the New Brunswick Legislature to make such changes in (he School Law, as deprived the Roman Catholics ot the privileges they enjoyed at the time of the Union in respect of religious education in the Common Schocls with the view^ of ascer- taining whether the case comes wiihin the terms of the 4lh sub.section of (he 93rd clause of the British North Ambfica Act, 1867, which authorizes the Parliament of Canada to enact remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions respecting education in the said Act." You see, therefore, the opinion of the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) was that it was not expedient for the House to pass censure upon the Government and disallow tnat Bill, but on the contrary left the decision with the officers of the Crown. Cn 29th November, 1872, the law officeri of the Crown reported as fol- lows : " That we agiee substantially with the opinion of the Minister of Justice of the Dominion, so far as appears from the papers before us." Sir J. D. Coleridge and Sir G. Jessell said of it : " Of course, it is quite possible that the new Statute of the Province may work in practice unfavorably fo this or that denomination therein, and therefore to the Roman Caiholics ; but we did not think that such a state of things is enough to bring into operation the restricting powers of appeal to the Governor in Council." It seems to me that this New Brunswick case is much stronger than the one now before us. We had a minoi'ity in the Province of New Brunswick of Roman Ca- tholics, who contended that the law passed was a great injustice to tliem. The first Minister said he recognized the injustice. The law officers of the Crown said the same thing when their opinion was taken in 1875, but they all agreed that the mat- ter was of purely local concern. 1 would like to ask the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) if the views of the Catholic minority in the Province of New Bruns- wick should not be respected as well as those of the Protestant minority in Quebec which is entirely satisfied with the action of the Government. In New Brunswick the Catholics felt that their rights were unjustly dealt with, the Government law officers of the Crown were of the same opinion, and the Government here were of the same opinion but in spite of all that, they all agreed that it was a matter of purely local concern, with which we had nothing to do. AFTER RECESS. When the House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavoring to show that in the ques- tion of the New Brunswick School Law, the Catholic minority in that Province, had made complaint, in reference to the legislation of that Province, that their rights had been seriously infringed upon. I endeavored to show that I ho Minister of Jub- lice of that day, the right hon. the Premier of this country had expressed his opi- 11 30 ) 'i, 1 1 nion upon that laAV, and had stated distincly that while he sympathized with the Eomaii Catholics in that Provinee, yet that the action of the New Brunswick Legislature was entirely within its jurisdiction. I quoted also the authority of se- veral gentlemen, among them the hon. member for West Durham (Mi*. Blako). I showed that he moved "in amendment to have the matter referred to the law officers of the Crown and also expressed Jxis opinion of the Act. I find that opinion reported in the Globe of May 19th, 1872 : " Mr. BLAKE said he'ht»d from time to time considered the constitution with reference to the state of the law in New Brunswick on the subject of schools, and he was free to confess that his opinion had fluctuated, and any expression he might now give was given with great doubt and hesitation. He was free to admit that there was much to bupporl the view that had been put forward in the report of the Minister of Justice on the subject, and that the conclusion of that gentleman might have been fairly reached and might very possibly be correal ; but hg desired to point out to the House those circumstances with reference to the Act which led his mind very strongly — he would not say conclusively — to a dilFerent conclusion. He moved in amendement that the question be referred to the law officers of the Crown, and they expressed their opinion that the legislation of New Brunswick was entirely within the jurisdiction of that Legislature. Then we have Mr. McDougall, who jioses sometimes as a constitutional lawyer, who upon that occasion, gave ex- pression to his opinion as follows: — " I agree that any interference with the powers that are given to th« Local Legislature in the framing of laws unnecessarily through political or national, religious or other motive, except on the broadest public grounds, would be injudicious and improper." In 1815, the question of the New Brunswick school law was again brought to the notice of this House. A resolution was moved by Mr. Cauchon, seconded by the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), in which they recited the resolution of the previous year, and asked the intervention of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The resolution Avas as follows : — i. ;■ " The House regrets that the School Act passed in New Brunswick is unsatisfactory to a portion of the inhabilants of that Province, and hopes that it may be so modified during the next session of the Legislature of New Brunswick as to remove any just grounds of dissatisfaction that now exist. Thai Ih'i House regrets that the hope expressed in the said resolution has not been realized and that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty embo jing the resolution and praying that H^r Majesty will be graciously pleased to use her influence with the Legislature of New Brunswick to procure such a moditicalion of the said Act as shall remove such grounds of discontent." That matter was referred to the law officers of the Crown, and upon the 18th October, 1815, there was adespacth from Lord Carnarvon, in which he stated : " That he laid it at the foot of the Throne, but that he could not advise Her Majesty to take any action in respect of it ; that he could noi advise the Qiiopn to advise the Lpgislalure of New Brunswick to legislate in any particular direction as that would be undue interference." Further on he says : ;• Holding, as I have already explained, that the constitution of Canada does not contemplate any intprference with ih*- provincial legislation, on a subject within the competence of the Local Legislature by ihn Dominion Parliament, or as a consequence by the Dominion Ministers." So even the law officers of the Crown were of the opinion that, though sympathizing with the minority in New Brunswick, they could not advise interference with that law or advise the Crown to disallow the Bill. On that occasion, the hon. member for Ea8t_^York (Mr. .Miickonzie), who sympathized very strongly with the minority in the Province of Now Brunswick and lolt that they had been unfairly dealt with, said : 31 " But there is a higher principle still which we have to adhere to, and thai is to preserve in their integrity the principles of the conslilulion under which we live. If any personal act of mine, if anything 1 could do would assist to relieve those who believe they are living under a grievance in the Province of New Brunswick, that act f/oa\d bo gladly undertaken and z^^alously performed; but I have no right, and the House has no right to interfere with the legislation of a Province when that legislation is secured by an Imperial compact to which all the parlies submilted in the Act of Confederation. • • • I have merely to say this, whatever may be our religious procli- vities or feelings, whatever may be the feelings that actuate us in relation to local grievances, it is not well that we should endanger the safely of any one of the Provinces in relation to matters provided for in the British North America Act, which is our wrillen Coustitulion. • • It is not desirablo that we should make the way open or that anything should be done which would excite religious discussions and permeate religious animosities.' That was good advice, and that advice was followed by the House. Now, I come to consider a question which seems to have exercised the mind of the Globe news- paper, and that is the articles in the Law Journal and the Law Times. I have shown. I think, by constitutional authority, that the Act, if it be unconstitutional or ultra vires, should be allowed by the Government to take its course, and those who are injured by its operation or aggrieved by it should at once apply to the law courts for redress. The Law Journal has declared beyond all question that the Act is ultra vires; and, if that be so, according to the practice we have always adopted, the parties should apply to the courts for redress. The Laio Journal says : '< It will, we think, be conceded, apart from any provisions in Imperial statutes, that it is ultra vires the constitutional power of a Goloniel Legislature to confer on or delegate to any foreign sovereign, potentate, oi- tribunal, lawful jurisdiction or authority to determine, or ratify, the distri- bution of the moneys or properties of the Crown, or now money grants to the subjocts of the Crown, within its colonial jurisdiction, are to be distributed. The Imperial Grown may in any proper case agree with another crown or nation to refer to a sovereign, or to arbitrators mutually agreed upon questions affecting its belligerent or territorial rights or claims; but this regality of the Imperial Crown is not possessed, nor can it be exercised, by a Colonial Government or Legis- lature. Ifit would be M//ro mres of the Legislature of Ontario to delegate authority to a foreign power — say to the President of ihi United States— to distribute, or to ratify the distribution of public moneys legally voted (the Clergy Reserve moneys, for instance), it follows that this delega- tion of authority to the Pope by the Legislature of Quebec must also be ultra tires. What would he unconstitutional in Ontario must be equally unconstitutional in Quebec." The Law Journal lays down the proposition that the Act is ultra vires. If that be so the authorities show clearly that they must go for redress to the courts ; but what evidence have we in this instance that the Pope is, as they say, a foreign potentate ? The Law Journal does not pretend to say how it is, except that, under the Statute of Elizabeth, there were certain documents, or mandates, or judgments issued or sent forth by the Pope, and that those should not be recognized by the authorities in England. But the Statute of Elizabeth was passed under diflerent circumstances from those which exist now, and the position of the Pope to-day, bereft of his tem- poral power, is entirely different from what it was years ago. Instead of being a foreign power, ho is in this case simply an arbiter between two parties in the Province of Quebec. At the time to Avhich my hon. friend fromMuskoka alludes, no doubt the Pope did exorcise a controlling influence in Europe and over many nations, but now ho is bereft of that power and is in a totally different position. The Law Journal says this matter is not yet settled, and should be relegated to the courts. That is the position which this Government and all preceding Governments have taken in regard to such a question. Then, as to the Law Times. In my judgment, the Law Times shows sonclusively thnt it is quite constitutional for the Province to vote money in the Avay it has. The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. OBrien) is entirely at issue Avlth the Laiv Times on that point. If he had read the article in the Law Times, he would have found that it holds that the voting of money to eccle- siastical institutions or powers is regarded by that newspaper in an entirely differ- ent way from that in which ho regards it. I cannot understand, therefore, on Aviiat m It! I ^ 83 Xi • \ t ■1 ground tho Globe made its sudden summersault- The Law Times says it is constitu- tional to vote money for this purpose. Of course, the Law Times is in conflict with Mr. Wm. McDougall on that point, but T will refer to him later. The Law Timu says: " The constilutional question that arises is not the voting away of public money, be the pretext never so shallow, but the subordination of the sovereign to a foreign authority, and the placing of Her Majesty's public funds at the disposal of the same foruign authority. It is of course an unquestionable and fundamental proposition of law that the Legislature cannot deny the sovereignty of Her Majesty or acknowledge the sovereignty of any other person, esp'^ciaily as under the Constitution it derives its sole authority from an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament. But there is authority for saying that such a proceeding would bo unconstitutional." Then it goes on to refer to the case of the International Bridge Company and the Canada Southern Eailway Company, reported in 28 Grant, page 14, showing that the action of Parliament would be unconstitutional in declaring that an Act of that kind could go into operation without tho consent of a foreign power. It quotes the decision of Vice-Chancollor Proudfoot as follows : " If Canada has chosen to pass an Act in terms similar to the New York Act, it derives its validity from the Canadian Legislature, not from the Legislature that originally creati^d it. No express clause was required to exclude the laws of one from operating in the territory of the other ; the exclusion arose from the countries forming part of different nationalities with diff'Tont sovereign powers. Each country has assented to tho corporation created by it uniting with the corporation created by the other, and bringing into the union the rights and liabilities conferred or imposed upon ii, and certainly Canada has not introduced the provisions of any Act of Congress passed subsecTuent to the union applying to the united company. Were the Ganudian Parliament to endeav'or to do so— ic say that Canadian subjects an 1 Canadian corporations are to be subject to legislation that might be passed by Congress— it would, 1 apprehend, be unconstitutional." And upon that ground the Law Times argues that it is unconstitutional in having, as it says, delegated the power to the Pope to say whether the law shall go into operation or not. We have seen that the Act does not depend upon the action of the Pope at all, but thp noney voted by this Act for a particular purpose is left for the Pope to say how much shall go to one church or another, or to one university or another. Now, we have in our Canadian Parliament enactments which are somewhat at variance with the law as laid down by Mr. Justice Proudfoot. In the Niagara Frontier Bridge Company Act we have a clause to this effect : " The said company shall not commence the actual erection of the said bridge until an Act ot the Congress of the United States of America has been pass-^d consenting to or approving the bridging of the said river, or until the executive of the United Slates of America has consented to and approved thereof." We have enacted the same thing in the Niagara Frontier Bridge Company Act. I think I can safely say that the constitutional authorities of this country, who have expressed their opinion upon it, are as reliable and as deserving of our confidence as the expressions of the opinion in the Law Times or other papers of the same kind. It seems to me that the Law Times could not have carefully considered the question, otherwise it would not have arrived at the conclusion I intend to point out. The hon. member for Muskoka states in his resolution that the Act is not legal, firstly ; "Because it endows from the public funds a religious organization, thereby violating the unwritten but understood constitutional principle of a complete separation of church and state, and the absolute equality of all denominations before the law," We have an answer to that in the Law Times, which says : th«noI'lSiS%l?'!l''°'^'"?.*.?'°'1?"^'^°*™"S'^« determined by responsible Ministers of the Dominion. ThPy are constitutionally answerable to Parliament and the people, and as has 88 frequenlly been shown, the right to disallow Ants was not granted in order that unconstitutional or invalid legislation might be gut rid of, but in order that Ih*) more important policy or the Dominion should not be interfered with by the Provinces. The whole course of English history shows a struggle with the ecclesiastical houses to prevent property from falling into their hamts. The policy both in England and her colonies has been the same— to prevent the property of the nation from falling into mortmain. But it is a question, not of legality, but of policy, and with the policy of the Governments of the day wo have nothing to do." Whereas, on the other hand, the Mail says it is entirely a question of policy with which we have to do, yet the Law Times is of a contrary opinion : " If a particular Province choose to depart from this policy and permit the absorption oi pro- perty by ecclesiastical orders, it is undonljtedly acting within its constitutional rights. TIh Governor in Council would also be acting within his constitutional rights in opposing such a policy by disallowing all Acts tending thereto ; but it is a question of policy as we have said, and not of law. The Act then roust be looked at with regard only to its contents." So that while the hon. member for Muskoka takes strong ground that no Legislature has a right to vote money for ecclesiastical purposes to seminaries or churches, or anything of the kind in the Province of Quebec, yet the Law Times says that they have got absolute power. Now, which authority are we to take ? Are we to take that of the Law Times, or that of the hon. member for Muskoka, or are we to say that the Government acted strictly within its constitutional rights and privileges by saying : We will not interfere, because they had a perfect right to vote their money; at any rate it is a matter of purely local concern. Now, it is stated that the Pope is an alien, and as such has no right whatever to express an opinion upon this question. If we look at the Treaty of Paris we find that, to a la)'ge extent, his authority is recognized so far as is necessary for cnurch purposes. The clause says : " For her part, Her British Majesty agrees to grant to the inhabitants of Canada the liberty of the Catholic religion. Consequently s-he will give most precise and effective orders, so that her new Roman Catholic subjects may proiess and practise their religion, according to the rites of the Homan Church, in so far as the laws of Great Britain permit." Now, the law of Great Britain permits the Catholics to carry on the affairs of their church just as they please, so long as they do nothing in conflict with the laws of England. It seems to me, looking at the Laiv limes and Law Journal, that they agree with the proposition 1 laid down, that if an Act bo ultra vires or unconstitu- tional, it should not be a subject of dincussion, but one which the Government should leave entirely to the jurisdiction of the courts. Now, we have another autho- rity in this House — Mr.Wicksteed, who has been for years the law officer for thia House. He has expressed his opinion upon it, and I find in a communicated article this language : " And as respects the article questioning the constitutionality of the said Act, — it does not seem to me that the English Acts cited in it can apply to Canada, which, when they were passed, was no part of the realm of England, and the inhabitants of which are by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Parliament, guaranteed the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, of which the Pope Is the head, and his supremacy as such is part of its very essence. The later law derogates from and virtually repeals any former provision contrary to it. The English laws disqualifying Roman Catholics from holding certain offices were never in force in Canada. The money appro- priated belonged to the Province, and is granted by its Legislature for the purposes for which the property from which it arises was given by the French King, and the Act of Appropriation is sanctioned by the assent of the Queen, who may, without impropriety, avail herself, in dealing with it, of the advice and assistance of the head o." the church and of an ecclesiastical ami educa- tional corporation, which, if not legally the same, is morally the representative and successor of that to which the original grant was made, and which, with the Pope, will be bound to use tbj money in accordance with and solely by virtue of the powers given them by the Act." So we find that nearly every authority learned in the law who has expressed ari opinion, points clearly to the fact that the Government acted entirely within the 8 '" ' m 84 ' ir constitution. But, Sir, these gontlemon who are so terribly annoyed because tho Pope has been called in, and has choaou to say how that money belonging to the church Bhall be distributed, were not so particular a Hhort time aj^o when the Pope's opinion was asked upon a more important question. In Ireland, not very long ago, when, as we know, diKsonsions were rampant, when tho people of England were looking to Ireland with dismay, were not tho people of England glad to have the Popo act as arbitrator? Wo have hero a very important question, and I see nothing in tho English courts, in tho English Parliament, or in the English Govern- ment, ])rote8ting against this. On the contrary, they wore glad to see tho Popo give his opinion on that question. Also, when tho question arose upon boycotting and paying rents, the matter was referred to tho Pope, and tho Popo issued — I do not know what you would call it — a pronunciamento, or -whatovcr it may be, and sent that to Ireland. No fault was found with that. I wonder tho hon. member for Mnskoka did not find fault with that. He is opposed to Home Eule, as I am mysolf, but at the same time, ho found no fault with tho Popo being called in as arbiter to settle this most important of all questions. Now, let ua see what the Popo says: " On several occasions the Apof lolic So husgiven to Ihe people of Ireland (whom it has always regarded with special benevolence) suitable ailinonitions and advice, when circumstances re- quired, as to how they might def"nd their rights without injury to justice or the public peace. Our Holy Father Leo XIII, fearing lest in that species of warf.iro that has boon in'roduced amongst the Irish people into tho conles-t belwewn landlords and tenants, which is commonly called the IMau of Compaign, ond in that in with the question of the Jesuits' estates, by settling it In a definitive manner: There- fore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislature of Quebec, enacts as lollows." It is true that the head of the Jesuits was authorized by the Pope to eiiter into negotiations, but these negotiations were not with the Jesuits at all, and there Is not one word in the Act to show it ; it was for the purpose of settling a long stand- ing question as to whether these estates belonged to the church or not. The hon. gentleman says that the Quebec Government are taking out of the Jesuits' estates money and handing it over to the church authorities, that $400,000 is to be placed at the disposal of the Pope and $60,000 at the disposal of the Protestant clergy. Such is not the fact, for there is not a word said aoout the Jesuits' estates. The Quebec Government has to take the money out of the consolidated revenue, and power is given them by the Legislature, in section 6 of the Act, to sell the estates and apply the money in any way it may think proper. Section 6 says : " The Lieutenant Governor in Council is hereby authorized to dispose, in the manner he deems most advantageous to the Province, of the whole properly, movable and immovabln, interests and rights, generally whatsoever of the Province upon the said property known as the Jesuits' estate." It, therefore, appeare that the Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to pay out of any public moneys at his disposal, 8400,000 under the conditions named, and may make any deed necessai-y for the full and entire execution of such agreement The money, therefore, is taken out of the consoliditatcd fund, and authority is taken to sell the Jesuits' estates and apply the proceeds as the Lieutenant Qx)vernor* in Council may see fit. It appears to me that upon every ground advanced by the lion, member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), this House is bound to answer his interroga- tions in the negative and to vote that the propositions made by the hon. gentleman are not in accord either with facts, or with history, or with constitutional la^.' Ho says further : " Thirdly, because the endowment of the Society of Jesus, an alien, secret and politico-reli- gious body, the ex|)ulsion of which from every Christian community wherein it had a fooling, has been rendered necessary by its intolerant and unchrislian intermeddling with the functions of civil government, is fraught with danger to the civil and religious liberties of the people of Canada." The hon. gentleman forgot to say that there was St. Mary's College, which was a recognized corporation in the Province of Quebec. Yet he deliberately declares they are an alien corporation. What does the Act of 1887 say ? It states dihtinctly that thoy wore incorporated as a body and were recognized as a corporation by the Pro- vince of Quebec. Those are the facts, and I leave the House to jud'^e as to their amplication. I have endeavored to show as briefly as possible, aiihough I have 86 nocoHHJvrily occupied considorablo titno in doing so, that tho rights of tho minority are not intorforea with, and I tliink I have shown that succossfuily; that tho people havo acquioHCcd in and approved both Acts, which is a fact bo^ond all question ; that the fooling raised in Ontario is entirely uncalled for, the minority in Quoboo asking for no such flupport for them. I have pointed out to tho satisfaction of this House, I think, that a largo amount of ignorance has boon displayed by public men in Ontario in discussing this question, and that tho hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) was somewhat at fault in his history of tho matter. I have also shown that tho attacks on the Jesuits, that the historical references made to the past ai'e not with a view so much to condemn the Jesuits as to stab the Eoraan Catholic Church. That is, at all events, my judgment, I gather that from tho resolution passed at the different meetings and tho course adopted, a course which in my judg- ment is not justifiable. I havo pointed out that the Jesuits of to-day are not the Jesuits of 100 years ago, that the Province of Quebec are in sympathy with tho Jesuits, and 1 have shown that thoy are not an alien corporation, and that they aro not such people as thoy aro sometimes considered to bo in Canada. It is true they were suppressed in 1773, but thoy wore restored in 1814, because tho Roman Catho- lic Church felt that tho Jesuits wore not at that time tho same class of men as they were before ; that they did not act as others had acted accoi-ding to history, but were influenced in their action simply by a desiro to promote tho best interests of the church. I have shown conclusively that they are entirely in accord with the Bomau Catholic Church. I have also shown conclusively that according to our constitution the course taken bv the Government was the only proper one, and in support of my statement I have the authority of the Law Times and tho Law Journal. I have also shown conclusively that the (rovornment was justified in voting money for ecclesias- tical purposes, and had a perfect right to vote money for Laval University or any other seminary er similar institution, and that if they acted harshly towards any portion of the community it became a question of policy. I have also shown that the Province of Quebec were not bound to give $60,000 to the Protestants which was more than their proportion of the money. It does seem to me, Sir, that it is unwise and inexpedient that this House should discuss a question such as this from the standpoint of my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien). I think that I havo shown that ftom every point of view the Government was justified in taking the course they have done : that is to leave the matter to the coui'ts to settle, whether or net it is ultra vires or unconstitutional. I, Sir, am going to be the last one to join in an unholy cn;b.ade against any portion of my fellow-countrymen. To-day, wo are joining together for the purpose of building up this groat Confederation into a magnificent nation. Is all that we have accomplished for the last twenty-one yeara to Go set at naught? I, Sir, shall not be a party to such a course. While I feel as strong in my Protestant views as any man in this House, I recognize tho foundation of Protestant principles : civil and religious liberty. As long as I occupy a seat in this House, even though I be thro.ate i?d with extermination from my constituency, I shall endeavor to deal out equal jusuce to all my fellow-contrymen. Mr. BAERON (Victoria, 0.). Ml*. Speaker, I wish I could content myself with simply giving an affirm- ative vote to the amendment of my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) ; but, Sir, that has become impossible. Fortunately or unfortunately I do not know I which, my name has been more or less intimately associated with the subject-matter of the hon. gentleman's amendment ever since tho beginning of this Session, and I ifeel compelled to supplement the vote that I shall give with some explanation. I do jthat. Sir, even though my duty is a most unpleasant one and a most painful one indeed, especially so when I remember and am conscious of the fact that in voting ?and in speaking as I do I am weaning myself for the time being—and only for the 37 timo being I hope — from fow or many, I don't say which, of tho hon. Kontlomon around mo with whom I havo boon in Huch happy accord over since I have iuid tho honor of u scut in this House. Still more cBpccialiy it is painful to mo, Mr. Spoukor, to speak as I do and to vote as I do, whom I am conscious of the fact that 1 am ifloparating mvsolf from the hon. gentleman on this side of tho IIoubo who loads mo and who leads us, and for whom 1, in common with hon. gentlemen on this side of the HouBO, 08 well as with many hon. gentlemen on that side of the House have feeli ^s not only of respect but of tho deepest possible nfloction. But, Sir, oven under those oircumstancos I enjoy the comfort which is that I know jthat hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House will, at least, give me credit for acting from sincere and honest conviction. Believing that I am in the right, 1 hope hon. gentlemen will give me their sympathetic attention whilo I speak to thoamend- jnont of the hon. member for Muskoka. I may bo permitted in passing to make a fow references to the remarks of tho hon. member for Muskoka, after which I will como to tho speach of the bon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert). I do not refer so much to the remarks that the hon. gentleman for Muskoka made this afternoon as I do to his remarks of a day or two ago, upon the occasion when he gave notice to this House of bis intention to introduce the amendment which he has placed, Mi*. Speaker, in your hands to-day. I do not wish to be understood even inside or out- ride of tho House as complaining at all of the course of tho hon. member Sox Mus- koka. It has boon suggested to me that that hon. gentleman's course was in fact for- estalling me and taking from me that course which I intended to pursue; but, Sir, I can tell this House that 1 was gratified beyond measure when the hon. gentleman rose in his seat a day or two ago and announced his intention of doing what he has done to-day. I recognize, and no one in this House can recognize more than I do, how giave and serious this question is, not only in tho presentbut grave and serious in its consequences in future, and I would be foolish indeed if I presume to think that J could give the question the weight and the importance of other hon. gentle- men in this House, I, who nm comparatively young and especially so in comparison with the hon. member for Muskoka. I recognize. Sir, that someone older in years, older in experience, and olJor in position tnat I am should havo taken this matter up, and I, therefore, say again, and I hope hon. gentlemen will believe me, that I was pleased and gratified when the hon. gentleman from Muskoka notified the House a day or two ago of his intention to move his aniondment. I do not complain even of his words when he spoke, but I may be permitted to make some reference so as to explain away the inference that his words core. He gave as his reasons for taking tho course which he did, that, inasmuch as my resolution appeared so far down on .tho Order Paper that likely it would not be reached this Session, he thought it was Ills duty, under these circumstances, to move in the matter. The very best answer to the statement of the hon. gentleman is that my motion was reached, my motion was made and the papers have since been brought down so that it will be understood. I think that tho course I took was right, not as has been suggested by people out- fi^de of this House, to evade the matter altogether. In speaking on this question I must be understood as having no feelings whatever against the Jesuit body or even against the Eoman Catholics, amongst whom I am happy to say I number many, many friends. I have no sympathy with the clamor wnich is being made outside of this House, clamor, I may say, without reason. Tho Jesuits have been in some quarters assailed without argument, and I have no sympathy whatever with the course pursued in those quarters against the Jesuits and against the Roman Catho- lic body. All that has been said may be time or false ; I care not. As far as my investi- gation and my reading has gone, I confess to believing that much that has been said is false. Even, Sir, taken the maxim. Finis determinat probitatem actUs, 1 believe that it bears no construction such as has been put upon it in certain quarters that " the end justifies the means." But, on the contrary, my reading and education has been such as to inspire me with admiration for the early Jesuit fathers. "We need only i" t 38 recall Pavkman's account (and ho is by no means a very fuvorablo historian toward Roman Catholicism) of the early Jesuit fathers, and wo must bo inspired and imbued with enthusiasm in our rc3ollcction of the work thoy accomplished in tho country. We can recall, all of as, from history, tho arrival, in this country, on tho unfortu- nate Palher Jogucs, his capture by tho Iroquois, his cruel and unheard of tortures, his riGucrmination to regenerate by baptism, notwithstanding his intense suflbrings, his subsequent escape to France, his poi-forming the sacred rites of the mass in his mutilated condition, his return to this country, his recapture and his fearful death at the hands of tho father whose child he was trying to save by baptism. Tho only effect of that will bo, the only result can be to inspire us with enthusiasm that such missionaries havo lived in years gone by. 1 appi-oach this grave and serious quos- tion entirely relieved from any bias whatever against tho Jesuit fathers or against the Koman Catholic Church. Our admiration for them is one thing, our judgment regarding the constitutionality of this Act under discussion is another thing. Now my first serious objection to the Act is that which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Muskoka. I claim, Sir, that the introduction into the Act of tho mention of the Pope is such a serious encroachment upon the prerogative of tho Crown, as to call for its disallowance at tho hands of tho Government. The sovereign is the caput principhim et finis of all legislation ; but in this particular case the Legislature of Quebec mak'js the Pope the end of its legisla- tion. The Pope is given the right, notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen say, to negative this legislation entirely. Suppose the Pope did nothing, tho Act would be a dead letter. It cannot be denied that the eftbct is to give a foreign potentate — and I shall show that the Pope is a foreign potentate — th" right to disallow or negative this legislation ; and if that is true, the converse must be true : if he has power to negative legislation, power to make an Act of Parliament a dead letter, it must follow logically that he has also the right to affirm legislation. And here we havo intro- duced into a British Act of Pailiaraent the power given to a foreign potentate to ne- gative or affirm legislation. Now, we are taiigh' again and again that the right of assenting to or dissenting from an Act of Parliament is a right so peculiar to the prerogative of the Crown that the sovereign herself cannot delegate it. It is quite true that the Governor General is given the right to assent or to dissent from Acts of Parliament ; so are the Lieutenant Governors of the different Provinces ; but they have not the right to delegate that power to anybody else. Delegata est non potest delegare is a maxim specially applicable to the Lieutenant Governors of the Provin- ces in cases of this kind. Now, to show that my contention is well founded, I want to refer to the Statutes. First, I will refer to the Statute of 1 Elizabeth, chapter 1, which has already been '"^ferred to, and clause 16 of which reads as follows : — " That no foreign prince, pprson, prelate, slate or potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall at any lime after iho last day of this Session of Parliament, usp, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, prH-eminence, or privilege spiritual or ecclesiastical within this realm or within any ether of Your Majesty's Jorainions or countries that now be, or hereafi-r shall be, but f-om ihenct^forih the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, and all other Your Hijiiness' dominions forever. Any statute, ordinance, custom, coastitution or uny other matter or cause whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding." The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Eykert), although ho referred to that statute, did not for one aioment contend that it was not in force in this country ; but it has been said that because it is an old statute, therefore it is not applicable. Well, I want to read Trom the Treaty of Paris, and I will read only those portions which bear on my argument. His Britannic Majesty engaged : "To giar' the libeny of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada ; and to give precise and elTectual orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects might profess th" worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish Church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permitted. " 39 I want to emphasiso these last words, ■' as far as the laws of Great Britain permitted," because at the time of the making of that Treaty of Paris this Statute of Elizabeth was in force, so that the treaty did not negative the existence of that statute in this country, but, on the contrary, perpetuated it. Now, the hon. member for Lincoln said that there was a distinction between His Holiness the Pope as a foreign poten- tate, and as the head of the church. I grant you that ; but does anyone mean to say that the Statute of Elizabeth is not directed as all the statutes of Blizahoth we re to His Holiness the Pope ? No one can ai-gue to the contrary, if he is possessed of, the least atom of historical knowledge. Every one of the penal Statutes of Eliza- beth was pointedly directed to His Holiness the Pope, and, therefore, the Treaty of Paris did not discontinue the Statute of Elizabeth or prevent its application to this country. If we want any further legislative authority, let us look at the Quebec Act of lt'74, the 5th section of which reads as follows : — " And for Ihe mora perfect security and ease of the minds of the inliabilants of the said Province, it is hereby declared that His Majestys' subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome at and in the said Province of Quebec may have, hold and enjoy the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy, declared and established by an Act, made in the first year of the reign of Qupen Elizabeth overall ibe dominions and countries which then did or hereafter should belong to the Imperial Crown of the realm, and that the clergy of the sad church may hold, receive and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights with respect to such persons only as shall profess the said religion." There we have, first of all, she Statute of 1 Elizabeth positively, in a legislative way, disapproving of the Pope in any way, exercising a jurisdiction ; then we have the Treaty of Paris coming after that, not preventing the operation of that statute ; and then we have the Quebec Act of 1774, specially perpetuating that statute in the Pro- vince of Quebec. Now, Sir, let me refer to the opinion of a great judge to show that whaf. 1 say is correct. Mr. Justice Smith, in the case of Corse vs. Corse, reported in the Lower Canada Eeports, page 314, said : " As soon as Canada ceased to belong to France, the public law of France ceased to exist, and the public law of England came in.' Now, it may be said that my construction of that statute is a forced one, is not a fair one, is not consistent with the time in which wo are living, in 1888, when it was passed in 1554 ; but I will read from an authority whose name is a household word, well known to every gentleman in this House. I refer to Mr. Todd, who was cited by the hon. member for Lincoln in his attempts to demonstrate the truth of some of his statements. He says : " ihe Statute of 1 Elizabeth, chapter i, known as the the Act of Supremacy, declares that no foreign prince, person, prelate, or potentate, spiritual or temporal shall henceforth use, enjoy or •xercise any power, jurisdiction———" Now, Sir, I want to ask hon, members of this House, how it is possible, if t,aat cons- truction be a correct construction of the Statute of Elizabeth, and I chal!\,ngo asser- tion to the contrary to contend that that construction is not infringed upon by the Act passed in the Pjovince of Quebec last Session ? At the very least by it the Pope is exercising the jurisdiction of distributing moneys, if nothing else, which I say is a violation of the statute sccording to the universal construction thereof. Mr. Todd goes on to say : "—or authority withii. the realm, or within any part of the Queen's Dominions: and that all such powt'r or authority heretofore exercise! shall be T.rever unitel and annfixed to the Imperial Grown of this realm. This declaration remains in force to the present day, and it is the staldtory warrant for the supremacy of the Crown, in all matters and causes civil or ecclesiastical, throughout the British Empire, as well as for the renunciation of the papal claims therein." m ■■i 111 40 ^^ : i f fl If [ ' '! ■ "v Now, it has been said in the House, and has been written to the press by the hon. member for Bellochasse ( Mr. Amyot)that there is a distinction between the Pope in his spiritual capacity, as the head of the church, and the way he has been brought into this statute ; but here we have the opinion of Mr. Todd that his right to exer- cise papal claims in this country ought not to and does not exist. But, Sir, I shall cite earlier authorities. I understand that some of the gentlemen who are opposed to this resolution rely upon the authority of Lord Thurlow. Now, I ask the atten- tion of this House for a few minutes until I read his opinion regarding the statute : " By the 1st of Elizabeth, I laks it that there is no reason whatever, why the Roman Catholic religion shoiiM not have been exercisnl in this country as well as in that ; confining it entirely to that Acl, I know no reason to the contrary * * * * for the language of the Act is only this, that no foreigner whatever should have any jurisdiction, power or authority within the realm." Then I will refer to the language of the celebrated Wedderburn : " 1 can see, by the article.of this bill, no more than a toleration. The toleration, such as it is, is subject to the King's supremacy, as declared and established by the Act of the 1st of Queen Elizabeth. Whatever necessity there be for the establishment of ecclesiastical persons, it is certain ihey can derive no authority from the See of Rome, without directly offending against this Act." :Then it may be argued that this statute is not in force now, by reason of some Pro- vincial or Federal legislation which prevents its application in this country. No one who makes that contention could have read the British North America A.ct, be- cause Imperial legislation, which was in force at the time of Confederation, "ould ■liot since be repealed or destroyed by any Dominion or Provincial legislation. The /J29th section of the British Nort America Act reads as follows : — " Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in force in Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick at the Union, and all courts of civil ami criminal jurisdiction, and all legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers, judicial, administrative and ministerial, existing therein at the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, as if 4he Union had not been made ; subject neverlheless (except with respect to such as are enacted by 'or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the Parliament of Canada, or ■*y the Legislature of the respective Provinces, according to the authority of the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act." Even if there had been legislation in any way detracting from the Statute 1st Eliza- beth, which was undoubtedly in force at the time of Confederation, no legislation, either in this House or in the Province of Quebec, could in any way legally detract from or diminish the extent of the application of that statute. ' I think I have shown conclusively what is now the statute law of the land, namely, that resulting from the enactments of 1 Elizabeth. But I maintain that the common law. altogether apart .from the statute, is such as to prevent tho introduction of His Holiness the Pope into this legislation, fiome of us can recollect tho fact — I only from my reading — that, prior to 1850, the Pope attempted to divide England into different dioceses or /iivisions, but a statute was passed in 1850 to prevent him from doing so. This sta- tute was the Ecclesiasticals Act of that year. Now, I want to refer to Mr. Todd again, who says, on page 313, that that statute passed in 1850 declaring that the Pope had no power as a foreign potentate, either in his individual capacity as head of the church or aa a foreign potentate, to divide England into dioceses, had always been the common law of England. Mr. Todd says : " The Ecclesiastical Titles Act was is substance a declaration of the common law, which was aHlrmed before the Reformation, and ratified by Parliament some five hundred years ago." ' f'A 41 "rV If it was always the common law of the land, Sir, that the Pope could not divide England into dioceses, surely it must have been the common law of the land that he had not the right to distribute money, and that money the money of the State. I would like to know which is the most important — dividing a country into different parcels or dioceses with the view of placing church authorities over each, or distri- buting certain moneys ? If it was the common law of the land that His Holiness the Pope could not divide England into dioceses, it must have been also the common law that he could not distribute moneys in the way provided by the statute aimed at by the amendment now before the Chair. The common law of England became the common law of Canada. On this point Sir Eichard West gives his opinion, on the 20lh of June, 1720 ( see Chalmer's Colonial Opinions, page 510): " The common law of England is the common law of !be plantations, and all statutes in affirmance of the common law passed in England, antecedent to the settlnment of any colony, are in force in that colony, unless there is some private act to the contrary, though no statutes, made since these settlements, are there in force, unless the colonies are particularly mentioned," Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). That is a settlement not a conquest. Mr. BARRON. No, but it matters not. I maintain on that authority that the common law of England was such at that time that no distribution of moneys could be made by the Pope in England, and that common law became part and parcel of the common law of this country. Some reference has been made to correspon- dence from officers of the Crown in England, or others is high authority regarding the right of His Holiness the Pope to exei-cise any jurisdiction in this country. I, refer, in support of my view, to the Royal Instructions to the Duke of Richmond, on his appointment in 1818 as Governor in chief of Upper and Lower Canada, with reference to the inhabitants of Lower Canada : " That it is a toleration of the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome only to which they are entitled, but not to the powers and privileges of it as an established church. • * • • It is ou. will and pleasure that all appeals lo a correspomience with any foreign ecclosiislical jurisdiction, of what nature or kind soever b^ absolutely forbidden under very severe penalties." Then as to the royal supremacy, which cannot exist if this Statute is to become law, I will refer also to Mr. Todd who says at page 313 : " The source of the authority of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters and of its junsdiction in the last resort all over ecclesiastical causes is to be fmnd in the doctrine of th'^ Royal Supremacy. This doctrine is a fundamental principle of the British Constitution. It was authoritatively asserted by Pdrliameni at the era of the Reformation, and it is inierwoven with the very essence of the monarchy itself." Further on he says : " While by previous enactment, ecclesiactical supremacy had been conferred upon the Crown, as a perpetual protest against the assumptions, by any foreign priest or potentate, of a right to exercise coercive power or pre«eminent jurisdiction of British subjects." Now, I think I have fairly shown that, at all events, the statute law is against the introduction of the Pope into any matters in this country in the way this statute provides. I will refer now to what I believe to be the objectionable clauses, and I will ask how it is possible for anyone not to admit, in the face of the statute, that these clauses to which I refer certainly make this law an infringement of the law as it is defined by the Statute of Elizabeth. Ir reply to a letter of Mr. Mercier, Car- dinal Simeoni says : •' I hasten to notify you that, having laid your request before de Holy Father at the audience yesterday. His Holiness was pleased to grant permission to se'l the properly which belonged to the :\H ■HMiPilli 42 1 ! I I i : nt Jesuit Fathers before they were suppressed, upon the express condition, however, that the sum to be received be deposited and left at the free disposal of the Holy Sue." Then, in another place, Cardinal Siraconi replies to Mr. Mercier : " The Pope allows the Government to retain the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuits estate as a special deposit to be disposed of hereafter with the sanction of the Holy See." Is it to be said in the British country that we are to be told by a foreign potentate that he allows the Government of this couutry — a British Government — to " retain the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuit estates as a special deposit to bo disposed of hereafter with the sanction of the Holy See ? " Yet, allovs'ing this Act is tantamount to saying that wo allow the Pope to assume this important position. In another place, Cardinal Simeoni, replying to the question : " Should authority be given to any one to claim from the Government of the Province of Quebec (he propi^rly which belongi^il to the Jesuit Fathers before the suppression of the society, and to whom and how should it be given? " Saj's as follows : " Affirmatively in favor of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus and in accordance with the method prescribed in other places, that is to say, that the Fathers of the Society of J'-sus treat in their own name with the civil government, in such a manner, howfver, as to leave full libi'rty to the Holy See to dispose of the properly as it deems advisable, and, consequently, that they should he very careful that no condition or clause should be inserted in the official deed of the concession of such prop'.rty which could in any manner affect the liberty of the Holy Sea." Then in another place Mr. Mercier appears to acknowledge all that the Pope, through his secretary, demands. He says : " That the amount of the compensation fixed shall remain in the possession of the Government of the Province as a special deiosil until the Pope has ratified the said settlement, and made known his wishes respecting thy distribution of such amount in ihis country." Now, the letters containing these sentences are a preamble to this statue. They are referred to by a section of this statute and are made part and parcel of the law of Quebec — a British Province — and that the law is that nothing is to be done until the Pope has ratified the settlement and made known his wishes as to the distribu- tion of the Property, There is an admission on the part of a Premier of a British Province that a foreign potentate— for such I claim ho is — has the power to ratify British legislation. If ho has the ])o\ver to ratify it, ho has the power to nullify it, and that is a power which no one, whether he be the head of a church or not, should possess. Then the statute goes on, in order to give it a sort of meritorious effect, to talk about restitution. In the veiy front of the statute, it speaks of restitution being necessary to be made to the Jesuit Society. What is restitution ? You cannot restore anything to a person who was not at one time or other entitled to it, or to some one who is entitled to claim it on his behalf I contend that the Jesuit Society, which was incorporated in 1887, has nothing whatever to do with the original Jesuit Society. Suppose a society is incorporated bv charter in this Parliament, and for some reason or other it becomes extinct, and lifty years afterwards another society is formed under the same name, can anyone say, will anyone argue, that the society so formed can have any claim to the estates of the ibrmer society which has become extinct? Certainly not; and the same state of things exists here, and there can be n© principle whatever of restitution involved. Sir, to contend the affirmative is to contend, not for the principle, but for the irony of restitution. I find that the Jesuit Society was incorporated in the year 1678 in Prance. I shall not trouble the House by reading at length the diploma or letters 43 patent incorporating that society, but, with your consent and the consent of the Hoase, I shall ask permisBion to hand it in. Sir JOHN A. MAGDONALD. No. Some hon. MEMBEES. Eead. Mr. BAREON. On the 2nd August, 11G1, that Society was dissolved in France, and, if the House is determined to have lengthy words read, I shall read the decrees of dissolution, contenting myt^elf with the bold statement that the Society was incor- porated as I have said. The Society was dissolved by the self-same Parliament which originally incorporated it, and the declaration of the King of France at Versailles was : " Moreover, we ordain, that during one year from the date of the enrolment hereof, nothing shall be ordered, either detiuilely or provisionally, upon what may relate to the said institutes, conslituiions and establishments of the houses of the said society, unless we shall otherwise so ordain." Then on the 6th August 1*761, by another sentence, the Parliament of France, with leference to the report to them made of the doctrine of the Jesuits, made the follow- ing provisions : — " In like manner it is provisionally inhibited and forbidden unto the said priests, and others of the said society, to continue any lessons, either public or private, of theology, philosophy or of the 'humanities in the scliools, colkges and seminaries within the jurisdiction of the court, under penalty «f seizure of their temporalities, and under such other penalty as to right and justice shall appertain; and this, from and after the lirs-l day of October n»^xl, as well with respect to the houses of the said society which are situated at Paris as to those which are situated in the other towns, within the jurisdiction of the court, having within their limits schools or colleges other than those of the said society ; and from the first day of April next, only with respect to those which are situated in towns within the jurisdiction of the court, where there are no other schools or colleges thiia those of the said society, or in which those of the said society j^hall b>' found to occupy any of the faculties of the arts or of ihtjolugy in the university there t'stablii.hed, a ', nevertheless, in case the said priests, scholars, or others of the said society, shall claim to havo obtained any letters patent duly verified in the court, to the elfect of performing the said scholastic functions, the court permits the said priests, scholars, and others of the said society, to produce them before the court, all the chiimbers assembled, within the delays above prescribed, such order, upon view of the same, and upon thy conclusion of the King's Attorney General, to be made by the court as to right shall appertain. " The court most expressly inhibits and forbids all subjects of the King from frequenting, after the ex})iialioii of the said delays, the schools, boarding schools, seminaries, noviciates and missions of iho faid persons styling ih''mselves Jesuits, and enjoins all students, boarders, semi- narists and novices to quit the coll' ges, boarding houses, seminaries and noviciates of the said society, within the delays above fixed : ami all fathers, mothers, tutors, curators or others having charge of the education of the said scholars, to willnhaw tin m or to cause them to be withdrawn therefrom, and to concur, each in respect to himself, in carrying into tfi'ecl this present decree, as good and faithful subjects of the King, zealous for his preservation. The court in like manner prohibits them from sending the said children to any colleges or schools of the said socitty, held within ihe limits of the jurisdiction of the court, or out of tht^ kingdom. And as for the said scholars, the court ileclares ail those who shall continue all' r the expiration of the said delays to Jrequent the said schools, boarding houses, colleges, seminaries, noviciates and instructions of the said persons styling themselves Jesuits, in whatever place they may be, incapable of taking or receiving any degrees in the universities, or any civil or municipal offices, or of discharging any sut h public lunctions. The said court reserving to itself to deliberate on Friday, the 8ih day of January next, upon the precautions wliich it shall judge necessary to take upon the subject of the offenders, if any there be.' Then the society, having been dissolved by the same Parliament that brought it into existence, appears to have got a respite for a short time. But the letters patent were enregistered, and provided : •' Subject, nevertheless to this : That the respite contained in the said letters patent shall take i 44 i; place only to the first of April next, upon which d ly the provisional decree cf tho court of the sixth August last shall be executed ipso jure, and also withoul ihe necessary proceedings to enable the court to render judgment on the appel comme d'abus, instituted by His Majesiys Attorney General, prove the bulls, briefs, constitutions, forms of vows, and other regulations relating to the said society, can be suspen''ed, and in like manner without prejudice to the provisional executioa of the said appel comme d'abus. " And also subject to this: That the public or private lectures on theology, philosophy or the humanities, held and given by the priests or scholars in all Ihf* towns or places within ihH juris- diction of the court, withoul distinction, cannot be provisionally continued after the expiration of the said respite, the whole under the pains contained in the provisional decree of the sixth August last." Thus I maintain that the same Parliament which brought the Jesuit Society, as a corporate society, into existence, by its decree, dissolved the society. Then, we find that His Holiness the Pope, on the 20th July, 1773, dissolved the society by his cele- brated brief Dommws ac Eedemptor. I shall not ask the House to the reading of that brief which is not necessary for my purpose, and in any event it is familiar to the ear of most hon. gentlemen in this House. A year later, this society was suppressed by royal instructions to the Governor General as follows : — " That the Society of Jesuits should be suppressed and dissolved, and no longer continue a body corporate and politic, and thfit all llieir nghlp, privileges and property, shoul 1 be vested in the Grown, for such purposes as the Grown might h^rpaftcr think fit to direct and appoint, and the Royal intention was further declared to be that the present members of th>i sail society as established at Quebec, should be allowed suflicient stipends and provisions during their natural lives." In 1791 there are Royal Instructions to the same effect. The last Jesuit died in 1800; the present society came into corporate existence in 1887, so I maintain that the present society is not in any way connected with the former society ; and the principle of restitution does not and cannot apply. This Government, at least, should have returned the Bill, suggesting that it should bo altered in some respects, and amongst others, the one to which I referred a few moments age Even the Bishops of Quebec, or some of them, admitted that the Jesuits were no longer in existence, and they, at the request of the Jesuits, made a claim to the property. I find the following in a petition over the signatures of Joseph, Bishop of Quebec, P. F. Tur- • geon, Coadjutor of Quebec, and J. S. Lartigue, Bishop of Montreal : «' Your petitioners humbly represent that the Order of Jesuits being exitnct in this country, their natural successors are the Roman Catholic bishops of the diocese." Then the very Act itself incorporating the Society of Jesuits in 1887, makes no claim whatsoever to their rights as owners of this particular property, so I think it cannot be maintained, on the merits, that they are entitled on any principle of restitution to this propei-ty. But it has been said that this property was taken from the Jesuits at the time ef the Conquest. I deny that, because at the time of the Conquest it did not belong to the Jesuits. It had become Crown property, like any other Crown lands ; therefore, when the statute now objected to says that the ;^roperty was confiscated, it states that which is not the case, and the Federal Government should not have sanctioned that mistatement, but they should, at least, have returned the Act to the Government of Quebec to have it amended in the particular. Now, in some pamphlets issued by gentlemen who support the Jesuit Society, I find Twiss referred to as an authority on the law of nations. A gentleman who writes a very able argument in support of the Jesuit case, has quoted from this authority as follows : — " A victorious nation in acquiring the sovereignty de facto over a country, from which it has expelled its adversary, does not acquire any other rights than those which belonged to the expelled 45 sovereign ; and to those such as they are with all their limitations and modiQcations, he succeeds by right of war." They also reffer to De Vattell on the Law of Nations : " The conqueror, who taices a town or province from his enemy cannot justly acquire over it any other rights than such as belonged to the sovereign against whom he has taliun up arms. War authorizes him to possess himself of what belongs to his enemy ; if he deprives him of the sovereignly of that town or province, he acquires it such as it is, with all its limilalions and modifications. " One sovereign makes war upon another sovereign, and not against unamed citizens. The conqueror seizes on the possessions of the slate, the public property, while private individuals are allowed to retain theirs. They suffer but indirectly by the war ; and the conquest only subjects them to a new mas'er." Now, I agree with every word of that. Suppose the United States and Great Britain were to go to war — and I think hon. gentlemen in this House on both sides would have but very little doubt as to the result — it would not be said for one moment that Great Britain obtained any rights whatsoever over private property. Now, at the time of the Conquest this property divl not vest in the Jesuits at all ; it had become extinct, it had become vacant property ; therefore, when it is said outside the House, as it has been said inside, that for meritorious reasons, because the property was taken by a method of confiscation, therefore it should be returned to them — I say it was not taken by confiscation, because at the time that Canada waa conquerea by England this property was not the property of the Jesuits, but was the property of France, having become extinct. We find the opinions of Her Majesty's Attorney General and Solicitor General for the Crown, dated 18th May 1179, stating in regard to this property: '* As a derelict or vacant estate, His Majesty became vested in it by the clearest of titles, if the right of Conquest alone vras not suiTicienl, but even upon the footing of the proceedings in France and the judicial acts of the sovereign tribunals in that country. The estates in this Province would naturally fall to His Majesty, and be subjected to his unlimited disposal, for by those decisions it was established upon good, legal and constitutional grounds, that from the nature of the first establishment or admission of the society into France, being conditional, temporary and pro- bational, they were at all limes liable to e.\pulsion, and having never complied with, but rejected the terms of their admission, they were not even entitled to the name of a society ; therefore, they were stript of their properly and possessions, which they were ordered to quit upon ten days' notice, after having been compelled to give in a full statement of all they had, with the several title deeds, and documents or proofs in support of 11. Sequestrators or guardians were appointed to the management of their estates, and in course of time and with a regularity proportioned to their importance, provision was made for the application of them in the various ways that law, reason, justice and policy dictated ; and all this was done at the suit of the Crown." Now, to show further that at the time of the conquest this was vacant property, I refer to Marriott's opinion, 12 May, 1165. He says : " From all these premises, it seems conclusive that the titles of the society passed together with the dominions ceded to Great Britain (in which dominions those possessions were situated) attended with no better qualiticalions than th jse titles, had by the laws and constitution of the realm of France, previous to the conquest an J cession of those countries." I mention that this Quebec Act is objectionable in many important particulars, and is also objectionable in declarinj_, that those estates were confiscated by the British -Crown. I say such was not the fact, and is not borne out by the history of the estates. This property has always been treated as having esoteated to the Crown, not as ;having been confiscated by reason of the Conquest. I find Lord Goderich on 1th. July, 1831. spoke to this efiect : " His Majesty's Government do not deny that the Jesuits' estates were, on the dissolution of that order, appropriated to the education of the people, and readily admit that the revenue which :li 46 li f I u •i '! 1] k ■ si: may result from thai properly, should be regarded as inviolably and exclusively applicable to that object." And tho Statute of William IV, chapter 41, states to same effect as follows :— " And it is hereby enacted by the aulhorily of the same, that from and after the passing of this Act, all moneys arising out of the estates of the late orrler of Jesuits which now are in or may hereafter come into the hands of ihe Receiver General of this Province shall be placed in a sepa. ratii chest in the vaults wh'-rein th" public moneys of the Province are kept, and shall ba applied 10 the purposes of educat on exclusively, in a manner provided by this A':l, or by any Act or Acts which may hereafter be passed by the Provincial Lugislature In that behalf and not otherwise." Then we have the petition of the bishops, to which I have already referred. Does anyone mean to say that if the Province became owners of this property by reason of confiscation, tho bishops would say the Jesuits were no longer entitled to it, as they did say in their petition ? It is quite clear, therefore, that the statute is incorrect in that particular, when it states that the property was a ..quired by confiscation. Then there is another point to which I desire to refer, and it is one to which has not yet been touched upon, and it is this : It is tho case that two or more of the properties wore acquired by the Jesuits, not from the King of France and not by grants of the Parliament of France, but from private individuals. I do not think anyone will deny that within strict law, and I may say I am speaking from a legal standpoint altogether — and I do not desire to go into the merits or demerits of the Jesuit claim, but to speak of the question from a legal standpoint only, — no one, I think, will deny that it is good and proper law that when property is given to a corporation or society or body of men or to one or more men upon a certain and specific trust, the very moment that the trust is no longer capable of performance the property reverts to heirs of the party from which the property originally came. That this trust was destroyed no one will question. It was destroyed by the Parliament of France. Then if such be the case, the heirs of the donors are not entitled to tho property, whoever they may be. But it may be said that T am building up a fictitious ca-^e, and therefore, I will quote the language of the Rev. FatherFlannery of St Michael's Cathedral of Toronto, on It February, 1889. He said: " These lands were never given to them by the French Government or by any Government but were the donations of private members of the church who left the lands in possession of the order for religious and educational purposes." That trust having been destroyed, it will not be denied by any legal gentleman that the property reverts to the original donors. Why, we seo only lately that the Seigniory of Sillery was given to a certain body of Indians, and that the property has been taken away from them by t'uis objectionable statute. We remember in 1882 in this House the first Minister, waxing eloquent over the contention that the Rivers and Streams Bill took away one person's property and gave it to another, he contended that tho public interests were greatly affected, and that it was his duty for that reason to disallow that Bill. The premises he built did not exist ; but •if he was light in that action, he should have enquired more closely into the facte regarding this question to ascertain whether the rules ho laid down for his own Go- vernment, and for succeeding Governments, dit not apply to this particular case. If he was right in disallowing the Ontario Rivers and Streams Bill because, as he said, it took away the property of one man and gave it to another, a fortiori^ he should have disapproved of this legislation because the trusts created by private donors have been taken aw:iy by the Parliarnent of Quebec, and handed over to other parties that have nothing more to do with them than the man in the moon. In order to show that I um not wrong in my view of th^8 question, I quote a letter dated 20th June, 1879, over the signature of Mr. James McGill: 47 " It sepms lo us Ihal it would have been prop>^r by an advertisement to call upon Iho public for any dormant claims there may be on the Jesuits' estates." I maintain, moreover, that under the British North America Act this Act is entirely unconstitutional. If I remember rightly (I will not read the particular section* it states that each Province of the Dominion shall have the right to deal with educa- tional matters, reserving the rights of the minority in Quebec, and the minority in the Province of Ontario. No one has over maintained that that Act gave to the different Provinces of the Dominirn the right to make donominationju gi-ants, as has been done. There can be not doubt that the Jesuits are a religious institution ; and are we to understand that the dittbront Provinces have the right to make reli- gious grants to the diiforont religious bodies ? I think not. I assert that if the loa- der of the Governement had the very least respect for his own past record and his own past uttei-anccs, ho would have disallowed this legislation just as quicldy as he allowed it. Why, we have only to recall the case of the Rivers and Streams Bill of Ontario. In that case he built up the premises which did not exist. Ho claimed that it gave the right to take away the property of one man and give it to another; and that the general oft'ect upon the whole country would bo such that he had a right to disallow the Bill. I say that, applying that principle, he should have disallowed this Bill, and for the reasons given. If it is true that a portion of the property was given originally to the Indians of the Seigniory of Sillory, then I say there are good reasons for disallowing this Bill, as, on the Premier's contention, there was for disallowing the Rivers and Streams Bill of Ontario ; there was good reason to disallow this legislation, if for no other reason than that it took away from the Indians land given to them, as it is said, by Franco originally, I desire to refer to the remarks of the right hoa. leader of the Government on the Rivers and Streams Bill disallowance ; and 1 may mention that his remarks were coincided in by several hon, gentlemen, and e.specially by the present Postmaster General and the hon. member for North or South Simcoo. On that occasion the Firet Minister ipoke as follows : — '• 1 declare that, in my opinion, all Bills should be dirallowed if they affect general interests. Sir, we a.''e not half a dozen Frovinces We are one great Dominion. If we commil an olfeace against the laws of property or any other atrocity in legislation, it will be widely known." Can any subject be thought of that afFects the people more generally than that of religion ? Can any subject be thought of that will affect the pe- ^le more generally than one respecting the Jesuits' Society. Without reflecting for one moment upon the society, let me point out that this society of Jesus has been legislated against by the countries of Saragossa, La Palantine, Venice, Avignon, Portugal and Segovia, England, Japan, Hungary, and Transylvania, Bordeaux, France, Holland, Toumon and Berne, Denmark, Bohemia, Russia, Naples, and in all Christendom by the Bull of Pope Clement XIV. 1 maintain that it cannot be said that a society legis- lated against in all these countries is not of general interest, but it might be said that "■ this was many years ago and that we are not now in the dark ages." I am quite willing to admit that, but I find that even since, that society was restored by Pope Pius Vn, in 1814, it has been legislated against by, and expelled from Belgium, BuBsia, Prance, Poi-tugal, Spain, Switzerland, Bavaiia and the Italian towns. i refer to that not because I have the least unkind feeling against the Jesuit Society, but I maintain that it cannot be said that that society is not of general interest when we find it has been legislated against in all these different countries. Can it bo said that the question is of the deepest possible interest right up to the imaginary line which divides the Province of Quebec from the Province of Ontario, and that the moment you step across to the Province of Ontario it has no interest at all ? I certainly say no. Can it be said that anything which will be injurioms to the Metho- dist bodj in Ontario, that the same body is not more or less affected by it in the I j2 •i1 48 > h J I i < .■■i 'i ii Ills ' if 'I Province of Prince Edward Island ? No. The Baptist community, the Congrega- tional community, and ail other denominations, have a touch of sympathy throug- hout the whole Dominion. Therefor, I say that the words of the right hon. gentle- man spoken in 1882 in this House in reference, to the Eiver and Streams Bill, apply to this case. By the authority of the words that he used then, I hold it is a strong argument for this Bill being disallowed to-day. I do not like to charge the hon. Premier with making fish of one and fowl of the other in this matter, but his treatment of the Orange Incorporation Bill in this House cannot be forgotten. He takes only three days to intimate to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec that he assents to and approves of this Bill, but he is dumb to the enquiry of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, to know if he would assent to and approve of the Orange Incorporation Bill, when one word from him, similar to that he cave Quebec, would have incorpo- rated the Orange Society. If ho assents and approves of this legislation it follows as a most positive scjuiYur that when he disallowed legislation in the Province of On- tario, and when he disallowed legislation in the Province of Manitoba, because he disapproved thereof, it must follow that by allowing this Statute to become law he does 80 because he approves of the same. I would like to give the hon. the Premier an opportunity, but I see he his not in the House just now, of denying what he is credited with having said at a certain meeting on the 20lli June, 1886. On that oc- casion he is credited by is organ, la Minerve, with saying as follows : — " To the calumnious hypocrites who represent him as the personification of religious fanati- cism." Sir John replied by saying : " That he had never in his life set foot in an Orange lodge. ••• lam accused, said Sir John, of b-'inj; a Protestant, and even of being a bad Protestant. In like manner I have been accused of being an Orangeman, although I have never set foot in a lodge. I do not know whether to believe that or to believe the statement of one of his jjro- tiges regarding our Eoman Calholic fellow-citizens, that ho, or a member of his Go- vernment " hud no confidence whatever in the breed." I have satisfied myself, at all events, that my conclusions are correct, that this Bill should have been disallowed, and, if possible, that it should be still disallowed, for the reason that it is stricly unconstitutional. Now that I see the Minister of Customs in his seat, I hope that he, occupying the prominent position he does in a certain order which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert), will not allow this oppor- tunity to pass without giving to some hon, members on this side of the House who think as I do, the benefit of his views. I hope. Sir, they will bo in accord with many of those who belong to the society of which I believe he is such Mr. BOWELL. An ornament. Mr. BAEEON. Yes ; such a great ornament. Mr. WALLACE (York, Ont.). I am sure, Sir, that every member in this House must sympathize with the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Barron) when he declared how exceedingly Eamful it was for him to separate himself even for a few moments only from his eloved colleagues, and still more beloved leader. We can all sympathize with the hon. gentlemen, and we can all sympathize with the party that is bo painfully dis- tracted at the present moment. I want to refer at the outset to a remark made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr Eykert) in the opening of his speech. He stated that a newspaper published in the interests of the Orange Order threatened any member of that order who will dare vote for the allowance of this Bill. I would say to the member for Lincoln, what perhajis he knows himself, that the Orange Order 49 lian only ono 0"gnn in tho Dominion, and, Sir, I doly him, and I defy any hon. member of this HouHe to point to any such article in that or^un of tho Orange Associution in Canada. I say, Sir, that tho organ haa, during this discussion which has agitated tho public, tho press and public meetings, and which agitation has assumed a pretty violent form in many places— I nay that that organ of tho Orange Association has Bct an example of moderation that might well be omulaicd by other organs, and also by some of tho members of the sacred profession in their pulpits. I fancy, Sir, that the hon. gentleman instead of reading an article from tho Sentinel was reading the 0/o/>c when it was thundering out its anathemas against tho hon. gentlemen opposite if they dared to vote against disallowance. For myself I propose to be able to dicuss tho very important amendment moved by the member for Muskoka iMr. OBrion) without any race or roligious prejudices or feelings, and purely from a Canadian standjwint. As a Canadian who has tho strongest faith in the future of our country and who has watched with pride its rapid march in material progress the united work of all races and of all religions — I hope that this question may be investigated on its merits and entirely apart ftrom any religious fooling. Wo came to Canada from difForont countries, or we are tho descendants of those who have come here to enjoy and exercise fully our religious convictions. We have flourished under our free institutions in Canada, and in order to do so wo must bo prepared to respect not only tho rights of other.s, but also their feelings and, to a certain extent, their prejudices as well. Now, Mr. Speaker, two very important Acts have recently been ]ja»sed by tho Quebec Logislatuio. Tho first was tho incorporation of the Society of Jesus in the year 1887, and in the following year the " Act respecting the Sottlemont of the Jesuits' Estates." Those two Acts bi-ing up the whole question of the Jesuit Order in Canada, as well, perhaps, as the Jesuit Order in other coun- tries. Previous to the Conquest, in 1759, the Jesuits held property which they have received from vai'ious sources in trust, for two purposes : for the training and education of the French youth of tho country, and also of the aboriginal inha bitan.s. Now, Sir, their position under the English regime depended upon the terms, tirst, of tho capitulation to Lord Amherst in 1760, and, secondly, upon tho terms of the cession to the English Crown by the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Article 32 of the Capitulation reads as follows ;-- " Th« communities of nuns shall be preserved in thpjr constitutions and privilpgBs. They shall conliiiue to observe their rules. They shill be exempted from lodging any military, and it shall be forbidden to trouble them in their religious exercises." The reply of General Amherst to this request was " Granted." Then, article 33, of the Terms of Capitulation, was as follows — " The preceding article shall likewise be execulpd with regnrd to ihe commimilies rf Jesuils and RucoUets and of tho House of St. Siili)if!(! at Montreal. This last and ihe Jesuits shall preserve ilieir right to nominate to certain curacies aud mission:? as herelofore." The answer of General Amherst was : " Befused till the King's pleasure be known." Now, it will be observed from these facts that tho Eerollets and the Jesuits received no particular or special rights under tho Terms of Capitulation of 17'iO. Tho next place where these matters were negotiated and regulated was in the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The only stipulation in that treaty bearing on this ques- tion was as follows : — " Ills Britannic Majpsty ngrees to grant tho liberty of the Githnjic religion to the inhahiiimts )f Canada ; he will consequently give tho most etloctual or.Jers that his new Roman Gaih .i c sut)- 4 m 50 jncls may itrofoss llio worship of their rolif^ion qc "onling to the rites of the llomati (Church, na fur as iho laws of (Ironl Biiiniii permit. His IJiiliuinio Mnjesly nlso agrees that Iho Frencii inhabi- tants, or others wiio lial lieen the Mil)j>'(;ts of liie most Chrisliai. Kin); in (^inada, may refro with all safety and freedom whenever they think proper, ond may sell their estates, provided it l)o to subjects of His Uritannic Majesty, and bring uway their elfects as well as their ^jersong, without being restrained in thoir emignilien nn ler any i)n'tence whatever, exc>'pt that ol debts or of cri- minal prosecutions; th' term limited for this einif^raiion shall be fixed for the. space of eighteen months, to bo computed Ironi ilio day of the exchange of the ratillculions of the present treaty." 'If Therefore, it is plain that the right secured by the treaty of Paris to the French Canadians was the liberty to worship (iccoidiri^' to tlio rites of the Roman Caliiolic Church, and the limit of tlio English law as it then stood. Thoy received no further rightfl under that treaty. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is a great and important dis- tinction between the .losuits and the Eecollets, Sulpicians and others establisiiod in Canada. The Uecnllcts and Sulpicians were organized by French subjects in Franco. The Jesuit Order originated in Spain ; it is of no nationality, and it has no law but the will of its (rcncial. The next change that took place with reference to the Or- der of Jesuits was under the Quebec Act of 1774, the result of which was given in the royal instructions to the Governor of Quebec in the year 1775. This made a now departure in the rules governing the Jesuits, and made a very wide distinction between the Eecollets and the Sulpicians on the one hand and tho Jesuits on the other. For instance, the orders to tho Governor in 1775 stated : if m •' That the society of Romish priests, called the Seminaries of Quebec nnd Montreal, shall continue to possess and occupy their lioust^s of residence and all other houses and lands to which they were lawfully entiled on the 31st Spptemher, 1759, and it shall be lawful for those socioties to till up vacancies and ailmit new members according to the rules of their foundation." That was the regulation with regard to tho other orders of the Eoman Catholic Church. But, Sir, what do wo tind in reference to tho Jesuit Order ? An entirely ditterent regulation was motod out to them, and it was as follows: — " That the Society of the Jesuits be suppressed and dissolved and no longer t .....ae as a body corporate and polilii;, and all their rights, possessions ,ind property shall be vested in us, for such purposes as we may hereafl r think fit to direct or iippoinl ; but we think lit to declare our royal intention to be that th.) pres'-nt members of Ilia society, as established at Quebec, shall be allowed sulTicient stipends and provisions during their natural lives." Now, Sir, by order of the British Parliament, in the Eoyal Instructions given to tho Governor of Canada in 1775, while the other orders of the Eoman Catholic Church were permitted to remain in Canada, enjoy their j)i-operty, and continue their work, the Jesuits were suiipressod. This took place not only in Canada, but in various counti-ies in Europe Wo lind that in 1759 the order was suppressed in Portugal ; in 17G4 it was suppressed in France ; antl in 1767 it was suppressed in that country where it first had its birth, in Spain ; tind not only was it suppressed in those coun- tries of Europe, but in all tho colonies and possessions of those countries throughout tho entire world. Following those events, Pope Clement XIV, the head of tho Eoman Catholic Church, found that order to bo so intolerant, so mischievous in its workings, so inimical to the peace not only of several Governments, but of the church itself, that ho determined to suppress and abolish the order. We, therefore find in 1773 a brief from tho Pope of Eome, and I will trouble the House while I read a few extracts from that brief. It is adrcssed to tho Catholic Church throughout tho world. His lloliness cites many instances of the suppression of religious orders by tho Holy See ; ho recites the many favors and privileges conceded to tho Jesuits, and then he says : " There arose in tho bosom of tho society divers seeds of discord and dissension, not only ,^, .. ni among thn companions but with other regular onl^rs, Iho secular clergy, iho ncailemieo, the public schools and lastly oven with the Princes or the states in which the sooioty was received." Tho Popo then rocitos ut Home lenf,'tl> those quarrels ; the nccuHations, he Hays : " multi|ilie(l without number, efipecially with regard to that insatiable avidity of temporal pos- sei^sions with which it was reproached." Then ho gives an account of some unavailing efforts to reform tho society, and adds : " In vain did these PonlilTs endeivor by salutary constitutions to restore peoco to th'* cliuroh, a» well as with respect to secular alluirs with which the company ought not to have interlorod." After reciting some I'urther efforts he proceeds : " After 80 many storms, tempests, and divisions, every good man looked forward wilh impa- tience to thf h.i|ii)y day which was to restore peace and tranquility ; but, under thn roign ol" this same Clement XIII, complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every pido, In Romn plucks dange- rous Fodiiions rose, tumults, discords, dissensions, scandals, which, weakening or entirely break- ing till! bonds of Christian charily, excited the faithful to all the rage of party hatreds and enmities." Then he says : " After a mature deliberation, we do, of our certain knowledge and the fullness of our apos- tolical power, suppress and abolish the said company. " Our will and moaning is that the suppression and destruction of tho said society and of ail its parts shall have an immediate an 1 instantaneous elfect." Previous to 1773, the society had been abolished by almost every Eoman Catholic country in Europe, and finally, that year ' was suppressed in every part of the world by the head of the Roman Catholic (uurch itself I think no stronger evidence could be given of the character of that order than the character given to it by Popo Cloment XIV. Pope Clement would not have uttered it. Ho knew tho machination of the order, and in this brief he states what ho was compelled, though reluctantly, to do in tho interests of tho church and of civil government. We are told, however, that the society was restored. True, it was restored ; and I will refer briefly to ono or two facts in connection with the society after its suppression. In Canada they were allowed, what they were not allowed in any country in Europe, to enjoy in peace and quietness tho property Ihey had received in trust. In the countries of Europe, thoy wore not only banished, but wore deprived of all their properties of every kind whatsoever. Now, the British Government, after tho death of tho last racinbor of the order in Canada, in 1800, took possession of the whole Jesuits' states. The Crown held those properties until 1831. whon, after some negotiations, they were handed over to the Government of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada with tho stipulation that the revenues therefrom should be devoted exclusively to the higher education of the young. That stipulation has been carried out up to the present day. But now wofindaditlerent state of affairs. Wo firid an Act of Parliament passed in 1887 incorporating thi.s csociety, and in 1888 an Act giving them $400,000, also giving the Government of the Province of Quebec power to sell this property, which has been estimated and valued at $2,000,000, and to devoto tho proceeds to any purpose they may think proper : — not to the purposes of education, but to any purpose whatever. Another important feature in this matter is this ? 860.000 are voted for the superior oducation of the Protestants in tho Province of QuoIjcc and $400,000 are voted to the Jesuits. A good deal has been said about the Pope's extraordinary powers in connection Avith the latter vote. The first point that I would call your attention to is this : That $400,000 is voted, not for tho purposes of education not pui-poses for which the British Government hold tho property, noti n 52 m l\ for the purpose for which the property was handed, in the first place, in trust, but for any purpose the Quebec Logishituro may choose. Not only 8400,000, but the entire proceeds of the estates. While from year to year until now the revenues derived from them were devoted to superior educulion, now power is taken to sell the pi"perty and devote the proceeds for other secular pur- poses, and the §400,000 are to be divided as the Pope may determine. That money is not required in the Act to be devoted at all to the education of the young, but it may be devoted to aiiy purpose. It may be devoted to the prop igation of the Homan Catholic religion, or to any other purpose they may think tit. I have carefully looked over the British North America Act, under which the Dominion Parliament and the various Legislatures of this countiy carry on their operations, and 1 am unable to see one line of that Act in which power is given to a Local Legislature to vote money for the purposes of any cliurcli. Many years ago ythen severe and bitter contests were going on in this country for the complete sepa- ration of •':he Church from the State, we thought in Canada that we had obtained that complete separation, and that all the churches stood on the same plane in the eye of the law ; but if this Act is allowed to go in force, an end is put to that equality and I think it would be a lamentable thing if a law should bo passed iu any Province giving greater power to one religious denomination than is given another. There are one or two features of this Act of incorporation and the moneys voted which, I think, are deserving of a little attention. We know there is no love between the Jesuit Order and certain other orders in the Roman Catholic Church, and we know through the legislation by which the Jesuits are incorporated, they are given only the right to exercise certain rights, not in the whole Province of Quebec, but only in certain portions. The second clause says : " Tho corporation shall not have the righ* under this Act to possess educational establish- ments ehfwhere than in the Archdioceses of Montreal and Ottawa, and in the Diocese of Three Rivers." Still further on it savs : :i, " Th*^ corporate seat of the corporation shnll bp in the city of Montreal and another place in this Province, within the present limits of the Archdiocesos of Montreal and (Ktawa, and of the Diocese of Tliree Rivers, which may be selected later on by a by-law of tho corporation." That means that in the archdiocese of Quebec, that diocese over which tho Cardinal has control, the Jesuits are not allowed any privileges. They are not allowed to e«tabti.sh their headquarters or schools there. As a matter of fact, they are incorpo- rated only in a part of tho Province of (Quebec. What is a still stranger feature is the fact, that they are incorpoiuted in the Archdiocese of Ottawa. 1 do not know much about the divisions and boundaries of tlie dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church, but lam informed that the Archdiocese of Ottawa includes three counties in the Province of Ontario. Tnat it includes the city of Ottawa, and therefore, the society which was incorporated by the Province of Quebec would be incorporated only in portions of the province of Quebec and also in portions of tho Province of Ont}?,rio. That would be one reason for disallowing the Act that it incorporates a society not only in the Province of Quebec but also in portions of the Province of •Ontario. It appears to me, from the reason I have already adduced, from tho reasons recoided in the re.-olution in your hand, and from other reiusons, that it would have been better for tho pea'e and happiness of the various portions of this community ^-ifthis society had not been incorporated and had not received this endowment. In the first place, it diverts money from its lawful object. That money has been, I ibelieve,failhfully administered for the purpose ofsufierior education since the Quebec iGovornmont got it in 1831. This Act also recognizes the supremacy of the Pope (Over the Queen and over the (Quebec Government ; and it is also bringing into life — 53 illegally, as I believe — a Rociety which was legally suppressed by the British Gov- ernment in 1775. As there was no Legislutui-o in Canada until ITtJl, I bolievo that Act, not having been repealed, is still law in Can ida to-day. I am against this Act) for another reason, as I have already said, that I do not believe the Confoderatiou Act gives any such power to vote any such money for any such pui-poso, and, therefore, though agreeing with the Government in its groat and prosperous Domi- nion, I shall be compelled to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Mua- koka (Mr. O'Brien). Mr. COLBY (Stanstead). In addressing the House I shall endeavor to confine my remarks very closely to the question now before the Chair. I do not find it necessary, in the discussion of that question, from my standpoint at least, to go into the record, as other spoakers have done, of that remarkable order of men, the Society of the Jesuit Fathers, of their beliefs or of their conduct a century or moi-o ago. I do not think that necessary to a proper determination of the question now before the House. Nor shall Igo into any close legal consideration of the case, as did the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Barron}, because I think it must be decided upon other, and broader, and more liberal ideas than can be drawn, from nice legal, fine-drawn, hairspun dis- tinctions ; and I think such remarks would have been more applicable in the Quebec Legiskture at the time ./hen the Bill i-eferred to was under disous- sion, than they are in this Parliament at this time. The proposition now before the Hou.se, «s I understand it, carries an implied" censure of the Govern- ment for not having disallowed the Act of the Quebec Legislature for the set- tlement of the Jesuits' estates, and a ]jositive instruction to the Government to disallow it. I think we will all agree that the power of disallowance, which by the Constitution is vested in the Governor General and his advLsers, is a power which should be exercised with the greatest discretion ; that, in the first place, it should appear, before an attempt is made to cxercicc that power, that the Government has the clearest possible light to exercise it ; and then it should ajipear that there was an obvious necessity fr r its exercise. It is a serious matter to interfere with the deliberate will of a Local Legislature under an}'' circumstances whatever — the clear and deliberate will of a Local Legislature. It is a more serious matter — for the gravity is vastlj^ magnified — when the question upon wliich it is attempted to con- teract their Avill and to nullify their lcgi&la088ible, the certain consequences of adopting the course which is now proposed. "Wo mve a Constitution, it is true, which binds our Provinces together in a Confederation )ut that is a paper bond. The moment you destroy mutuas good-will between the people of this country, the moment you array the people of this country in hostility — personal and religious hostility — one against another, you have destroyed the only bond which can permanently hold us happily together. Now, I am going to limit my argument within very narrow lines, and I maintain that if thif. House agrees with me in these premises, the right to disallow must be very clear and the duty obvious before we undertake this serious responsibility, before this House goes on a step fur- ther in the direction proposed. We had the deliberately and carefully considered opinions of the Minister of Justice, and all his colleagues in the Government, that the Act of the Quebec Legislature was wholly intra vires, and that there is no legal or constitutionnal power in the Dominion Government to disallow it. Does not that of itself create a doubt? Have we not also the opinion of men of eminent ability in this House and in this country, of high authority on constitutional ques- tions, differing from the Government in politics, differing from them on most every point, yet who are in agreement with them on this poinL, that we have no right to disallow this Act ? Then, I say, is there not suflScient ground to establish the only proposition I care to establish, that there is some doubt about it ? Then, I say, if it is a doubtful right, we should not face the certain consequences, the disastrous consequences of disallowance. Now, Mr. Speaker, wo have in the records in this Parliament a clr^ely parallel case to this, and in many respects a stronger case than this, in which Parliament has recorded its deliberate opinion ; I refer to the New Brunswick school question, which was precipitated upon Parliament within the memory of those of us who where members of the first Parliament of Canada, pre- cipitated upon at a very inconvenient period, just on the eve of the general elec- tions of 1872, a question which raised discussions of a most alarming character, and which created a degree of anxiety in the minds of every me mber of the House, which has never been equalled in the 21 years of my experience in Parliament. At that time a Catholic minority of one of the Provinces of this Dominion camo before Parliament, not with any nbstract proposition, but with a clear and positive grievance. They made out a case which aroused the sympathies of Parliament to an extent that I have never seen them aroused before. There was not in Parliament, as the records will show, an individual member of this House, on either side, Pro- testant or Catholic, or of any nationality, or from any Province, who did not record his vote of censure against the authorities of New-Brunswick by an expression ot regret and a hope that the causes of discontent would be removed — I say not a single member of the House who did not record his vote in that sense except those wanted to go further and give a positive remedy. The Catholic minority of New-Brunswiek came to us and said : " Before Confederation we had the right of enjoying our own separate schools ; we were receiving Government assistance in support of our own schools ; we were not compelled to send our children to the schools or to assist in maintaining the schools, which we thought dangerous to the morality and the religion of our pupils ; we enjoyed that right long before Confederation ; Govern- ment assisted those schools ; we built the schoolhouses at our own expense, the (Government made appropriations for the support of those schools ; we had, in fact^ 55 ., pre- elec- ter, and House, iameiit. came positive Qt to an lament, Pro- record sion ot a single wanted inswiek )ur own ir own isist in nd the overn- ise, the in fact^ (mjoyed a system of separate schools for many years before Confederation and from Confederation up the year 1871, when, contrary to the determined opposition of the Catholic minority, composing two-fifths of the population of New-Brunswick, contrary to their protestations, the Legislature of New- Brunswick, by a vote which was carried in the Upper Chamber by a majority of one, reversed that system, and compelled us to support schools to which we could not send our children, they withdrew all support from the schools which wo must sustain as concentious men ; " and they came to this Parliament and asked a remedy. They said to us : "We think this is a case clearly within the 93rd section of the Constitutional Act, and we ask for remedial legislation under the 4th sub-section or for disallowance ; but if you are unwilling to apply either of these remedies, then we ask that you will memorialise the Imperial Parliament to revise the Constitution and place us where wo ought to have been place us where we supposed we were at the time of Confederation, place us as the minorities in Ontario and Quebec are placed in respect to separate schools, we care not what remedy you apply, but relieve us from the situation. Those different propositions were brought before the House, and every one of them was refused. \ve refused to disallowed the Act. Why? Not because we did not believe that if fairness and equity alone were to previal it ought to be disallowed; but because wo had a doubt as to the right to exercise that veto. The Minister of Justice of the day expressed the opinion that we had no right to disallow it ; and an hon. learned gentleman of highest authority in this House at that time, and of highest authority in this House and in this country on those matters at the present time — I allude to the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) — expressed himself as having doubts on that question. On the other hand Hon. Mr. Dorion, now chief Justice of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Fouraier, now a judge of the Supremo Court, Hon. Mr Holton, a high authority on constitutional law, and Hon. Mr. Joly, with thirty-four, voted to censure the Government for not having disallowed the Act. Parliament deliberately recorded its doubts by adopting the Mackenzie amendment, which asked the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on that question. We felt it was a case where a remedy should be applied to remove an existing grievance, but we doubted our right to apply that remedy, and we expressed our doubt by adopting the Mackenzie amendment, and proposing a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We acknowledged the justice of their cause, they were coming to us for relief, the whole of the catholic portion of the Province was aroused on that question, their clergy and loading men came to u.^, bringing every influence they could to bear, and yet we refused that remedj' to the Catholic minority of the Province of New Brunswick. To-day we are asked, in a case of doubtful authority, to do for the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec that which we refused to do in ix .:imilarly doubtful case for the Catholic minority of New Brunswick. So this House is asked in regard to the Protestant minority in Quebec, which made no strenuous resistance to the passing of the obnoxious Act by the Legislature of that Province, to intervene upon doubtful grounds, while we refused to intervene in behalf of a Catholic minority whose claims we acknowledged to be just claims, who used every influence and power they possessed, who fought the question in the Local Legislature inch by inch and then came here resting on their rights and claiming them and urging them in the most emphatic manner upon us. Now, I think we can hardly be excepted to do that. If the former course was the right course, the course now proposed would be a glaringly wrong course. If we will not relieve actual grievances of the most serious character to pei-sons aggrieved and who begged our intervention, shall we intervene in behalf of those who do not claim, who do not state they have any grievance ; shall we step out of our way to do this, to voluntarily do it when our right to do so is doubtful ? I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that this House can deliberately come to any conclusion of that kind. When we remember the keen re8en,tment which was expressed by all the organs of 56 ProlGHtant sentiment in New Brunswick because this Parliament had presumed to express regret that diBContcnt existed there, and a hope that the School Act might be 80 amended as to give reasonable satisfaction to the Catholics of New Brunswick which was the substance of the amendment which I had the honor to propose at that time, and which Parliament then adopted in order to alleviate the situation ; when I say wo call to mind the keen resentment with which this mind interference was received by the Protestants of New Brunswick, we may well imagine what an outbreak would occur in Quebec were the Piotestant majority in this Parliament to cauHO the disallowance of ..n Act which was passed by the unanimous vote of the Legislature of Quebec ; that Legislature having acted, as is believed by a majority of The people, within the line of their strict rights. I believe. Sir, that the param- ount duty of whatever Government controls the destiny of Canada is to pi-eservo the integrity of the Union within the lines of the Constitution. I believe it is their duty to avoid, so far as they can do it, keeping within the lines of their constitutio- nal duty, every cause of offence to the various Provinces, because any conflir- between provincial authority and the central power is pregnant with danger. The Constitution has alread}' stood several severe strains. We have seen, I will not say by whose fault, in one Province of the Dominion, that Province swept by a senti- ment fiivoiable to an entire separation from this Dominion, Wo have seen in another Province the Government of the day and all existing things swept away by a spirit of nationalism, that felt in some way injured by the action of the central Govern- ment. We have seen the Province of Ontario agitated on account of an alleged infringement of provincial rights, and so also the Province of Manitoba. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). A real infringement. Mr. COLBY. A real or fancied — I am not discussing that question now. All these were serious blows and injurious to the Constitution and to the country, and are to be deeply regretted. Those who desiio the perpetuity of our system of Confederation should never make use of such questions for party purposes, except constrained by necessity, because they are not fair party weapons, and they tend to disorganize the country, I say the constitution has stood several strains of a serious kind; but there is one strain it has not been subjected to, and I hope it may never bo subjected to it, and it is that where religious strife and altercation, where animosities and feelings of the kind which grow out of exasperated religious sentiment are evoked. We know, and I will not comment upon it, and people outside of this House must realise that if we pass the resolution proposed it will precipitate a crisis the most danger- ous that ever occurred in the history of this country, and the most dangerous that could possibly be imagined. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, from the manifestations of feeling which are being expressed in certain parts of the Dominion, that the very zealous Protestants of some sections must have felt that the Protestant minority in the Province of Quebec have been very apathetic in the matter of the passage of this Jesuit Settlement Act. I believe there is nowhere in this Dominion a body of Protestants more willing to vindicate their rights, more willing to make sacritices for the preservation of their rights than are the Prote':tants of the Province of Quebec. I do not believe they are disloyal to Protestano ideas. But the Protestants of the Province of Quebec have lived for many years in close relation and in close contact with their fellow-citizens of a different religion, and many prejudices which the one might otherwise feel against the other have been worn away by contact. The Protestants and the Catholics ot the Province of Quebec, so far as I know their relations, live together happily upon mutually respecting terms, each respecting the other's rights, each respecting even the other's sensibilities and prejudices, and co-operating togethei', working together, for Avhat they believe to be for the common interests, without jealousy, without friction, without over-sensitiveness, recognizing the good things in each other; if they differ, quietly differing, and not have , meeting an actaal making thomselvos obnoxious to each other. These are the relations which grown out of long years of personal contact, living together side by side, and knowing each other. That is a happy condition of affairs, but it is condition of affairs in those parts of the Province with which 1 am personally acquainted. That is not a condition of affairs that the Protestants of Quebec desire to have disturbed. The Protestants of Quebec, and I think 1 fairly voice their senti- ments, acknowledge the fact — if they do not acknowledge it to be so, it is a fact — that there never was a minority in any country treated with more justice, with more generosity than the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec have been treated, irrespective of political parties. They have always had the control of affairs that most concerned them, those matters connected with education and other matt- ers concerning which the Protestants woi*e most interested as Protestants, and they have had as much control over such questions as if they had an entire Legislature of Protestants ; they have not been meddled with, they have simply boon permitted to menage their own affairs and they have not felt that they were in a minority in any instance that I recollect. Look at the political sentiment also. The Liberal party of Quebec elected as its leader for many years that noble man whom we all respect, Mr. Joly, a Protestant. They were not jealous, they had no objection on account of his Protestantism to serving under a leader whom they recognized as an able man whose views were in political accord with their own. The Confeorvative Government were equally liberal. Why, during the Conservative regime in Quebec perhaps the most important oifice in the Cabinet had all along been hold by a good old orthodox Presbyteriaii Treasurer, M. Eobertson, and we were allowed during that i-egime, perhaps, an undue representation in the Government of the Province. Wo had two members, able and influential men, in a Cabinet of seven, which is cert- ainly an undue proportion, and they were men of influence and men of character and ability. So that in ail these respects we have nothing to complain of, and, perhaps, it i.« for that reason th r ''"> do not wish unnecessarily to provoke an issue which would result ill the disturbance of those kindly relations. Then, again — and I know it influenced some men of high standing among the Protestants of that Province — we are finding Protestants and Catholics alike, Protestant and Catholic clergymen, standing on a common platform in the advocacy of matters which both think concern the well-being of the people. It is not very long ago, if I recollect aright, when His Eminence Cardinal Taschereau presided over a meeting held by Catholics and Protestants to consult with regard to the best legislation to bo had on the subject of temperance. Leading men of both churches 'e working together to promote the best ends of the community as viewed from their common standpoint. That is a condition of affairs which had been recognized by many Protestants who are interested in the cause of temperance as one which should be perpetuated. I simply instance these things to illustrate the friendly sentiment, and to show the cordial relations existing between Protestants and Catholics in the Province of Quebec and the desirability from the point of view of either that those relations, friendly coperative relations as they are, should not be disturbed. Again, let us consider what would have been the result if we had precipitated an agitation, if we had made the attack, or if we had raised this issue in which we were sure to be defeated. I may say here, which is a fact, that there is hardly a constituency in the Province of Quebec in which either the Roman Catholic electors are not in an actual majority, or in which they do not hold the balance of power. It is attributed to an hon. member of this House — I do not know how truly — that he said the other day with regard to the French Eoman Catholics that they considered first their religion, second their nationality, and third their party, and I believe that this is truly said of them. We saw in the great change that was made at the last elections in the Province of Quebec what the national feeling when appealed to would exh- ibit, I think it is true that the religious sen fciiueiAtxs the highest with the French Canadian people, and if it is above nationality, if it is above party, if that sent. •^yy-'-mtm m 68 iment is prepared to ally itself with one party or another party and that the ques- tion of party is a minor consideration, then in almost every constituency of the Province of Quebec the Protestants would be deprived of their just representation in the Legislature of the Province. There was nothing to be gained by raising an issue in which the result was a forogone conclusion and which issue could not by any possibility have resulted favorably to the Protestants. For these reasons what course was pursued ? The Protestants of Quebec have never acknowledged that the Jesuit body had a legal claim to the restoration of those estates. The press has never acknowledged it, the public men have never acknowledged it, the pulpit has never acknowledged it. Further than that the Protestants of Quebec have never acknow- ledged that the Jesuits had a moral claim to the restoration of those estates, and they placed themselves deliberately on record by their speeches in the Legislature on that point. It was a most bitter and nauseous pill they had to swallow when the name of the Pope was foisted into the Act. But that objection was more a matter of sentiment than otherwise. Assuming that the thing was to be done, assuming that $400,000 was to bo divided among certain Eoman Catholic institutions, it certainly was desirable, from every standpoint, that that the distribution should be final ; that it should not be an ever-recurring question and a reference to the highest authority of the church, the only one power which could make that a final settlement had its advantages. There is no doubt about that. If it was acknow- ledged that a sum of money should be distributed among the Catholic institutions it was desirable that it should be so distributed as to satisfy those who would receive it, and it was desirable that it should be recognized as a final settlement, so that from a practical standpoint, it might have bi.'cn attended with certain wise and practical advantages if this reference were made ; but I say that, as a matter of sentiment, it was not a pleasant thing to Protestants that the Pope should be consulted. Tet the Protestant did nothing more than to record their protests aga inst it. I do not think that any one who knows the editor of the Montreal Witness will suspect him to be a man who would not proclaim his Protestant principles if assailed, or who would truckle to Eoman Catholics ; and yet, if I recollect aright, the Montreal Witness, which is the most outspoken and the most advanced Protestant newspaper in the Province of Quebec, had but two mild editor- ials while this thing was going on. It published the reports of proceedings as news items, but it simply quietly objected to the proposition that the Jesuits had either a moral or a legal right to what they asked. It did not say to its readers : " Your rights have been assailed — agitate I agitate ! arouse yourselves 1 " It said nothing of the kind. The pulpit is usually outspoken when the pulpit feels that rights dear to it are inpaded ; yet no man that I have heard of from the pulpit ever called upon his congregation or upon the people to agitate on this question. He expressed his views upon it ; and there is no doubt as to the Protestant view on the subject ; it is not the Catholic view on the question ; and while the Protestants have never surren- dered their views, they have placed them quietly on record, and they have contented themselves with that. I do not read all the newspapers of the country, but I do read that great organ of public opinion, the Montreal Herald, and I do not recollect that the Montreal .Herald ever put in anything more than a mild protest. It did not called on the people to " agitate I agitate I " The Montreal Gazette was, perhaps, the most pronounced in its utterances on the question, but it merely expressed its views, and did not call upon the people to agitate the question. There weve no petitions that I know of going up to the Legislature from any portion of the Protestant comiTiunity, asking it not to pass that Bill. So, if the Protestants of Quebec may be fairly credited by the Protestants of Ontario and other Provinces as being men of equal ability with themselves, of equal fidelity to the principles of Christianity, of equal capacity to judge with regard to the utness of things and what was right or wrong, what was opportune or inopportune, if they may be fairly credited with «qual opportunities of judging, I think they should be spared the animadversions It k% 59 which Bomo are inclined to cast on them. I think thoy nudewtood the situation bettei", and I think they were as true to the principles of Christianity as the blatant men here now who are trying to agitate the country after the thing is done, and when there is no good object to bo served. I think they are equally true, equally intelligent, equally devoted to the cause of Protestantism, and I think they are in a better position to know what is best for them, from their individual standpoint. At all events, if the Government are censurable for not having disallowed this Act what opprobi'ium should not be cast on the Protestant minority of Quebec for not having protested against it, as the minority of New Brunswick did against the school law in that Province. It was because they felt and realised no actual grievance, and because they aid not want, for a sentimental grievance, to fight in a hopeless cause, to arouse animosity, to disturb the relations which are beneficial and in the interest of the whole community. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not care to protract my remarks longer. I am a Pi-otestant. The Roman Catholic Church — I will not speak of it as a religious body — I look upon to-day, speaking of it from a political standpoint and a political standpoint only — as one of the strongest if not the strong- est bulwark we have in our country against what I conceive to be the most danger- ous element abroad in the earth to-day. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the supremacy of authority ; it teaches observance to law; it teaches respect for the good order and constituted authorities of society. It does that and there is need of such teaching ; for the most dangerous enemy abroad to day in this land and on this continent is a spii-it of infidelity ; is a spirit of anarchy, which has no respect for any institution, human or divine; which seeks to drag down all constituted authorities ; emperors, kings, presidents from their seats ; the Almighty from the throne of the universe, and lift up the goddess of Reason to the place of highest authority. This dangerous enemy, this insidious enemy, is infecting the popular mind, not so much in Canada — thanks, lai-gely to the safeguards thrown about its people by the Roman Catholic Church— as in the neighboring Republic. If there is a d iger in that country and in this more to be dreaded than all others it is to my r iid that spirit of infidelity and anarchy, that destructive insidious spirit, and it can be best com- bated by that great spiritual power which upholds authority and law, whose very existence is dependant on the idea of authority, which cannot exist as a church or an institution of influence except upon the idea of authority and the observance of law, whose teaching are all in that direction. I do cot believe it is the interest of this Dominion to alienate, by any undue or unnecessary attacks, any one of the great powera upon which we must depend for the maintenance of our most cherished principles and institutions. I believe, Sir, that we have a duty to perform to each other, and that duty I have indicated. I did not intend to trespass on the House so long as I have done,but I thought it was proper that some one should represent what he conceives, at all events, to be the sentiment of the Protestant community in the Piovince of Quebec. I think the time is near at hand when it will be recognized by the two great religions of this country, the Protestant and the Roman Catholic, that the time for bickering has passed, that they have a common interest, and that for the promotion of that common interest they should stand shoulder to shoulder, work confidingly and in a friendly way together for the preservation of a common Christ- ianity and all that is more dear and sacred to both, and thus, I conceive, will the bcbt interest of this Dominion, and the best interest of civilisation on this continent, be promoted. Mr. MITCHELL. (Northumberland). for the purpose of making a speech on this question, ' ffivins: a few brief explanations for the vote that I Mr. Speaker, I do not rise I rise for the purpose of simply giving a few brief exphi shall give. I may say at the outdtt, t'lnt Tor once during the present Session and the last preceding one or two Sessions, ) am going to support the administration. I do not do it because of any particular virtue in that Administration ; nobody would 60 nlill i I- "H l m believe me if I said I did ; but I do it be-^auso I foel it to bo to the interest of the smaller Provinces, a county in one of which I have the honor to represent. Sir, I am not going to enter into the merits of the question as to the whether the course Mr. Mercier pursued in dealing with the Jesvii/'c estates was a prudent course or not. Perhaps, if had boon a member of the Legislature of Quebec, representing a Protestant element in that Province, 1 might have doubted the propriety of that measure, and, perhaps, have votod against its passage. I have hoard it stated to- night by some gentlemen that it was an improper thing to first charter the Jesuit Society. I have hoard it next stated that it was an iin|)i'oper thing to pass the Bill voting the money, and that it was giving to a foreign power to right to dictate how the money of the People of the Province of Quebec was to bo administered. Those questions, I taxe it, are within the Province of the Legislature of Quebec, and during the passage of that Jesuit Bill, occupying a public [)Osition as connected with a leading journal — I am proud to say it is recognized on tho other side — I have taken somewhat of an interest in observing the effect it had amongst the Protestant element in that Province who are paying tlie money. Now, Sir, 1 may say this, and I think I will say it without fear of contradiction, that during the passage of the Bill incorporating the Jesuits' Society, there was scarcely a Protestant paper throughout the whole of the Province that raised one single objection against it. I will next say, when dealing with tho financial feature of the t)uestion, that with the exception, so far as I can recollect, of two members out of the fifteen Protestant members in the Legislature of Quebec, not one of thera raised their voices against the passage of the Bill, and those two did raise them in veiy moderate tones. And when it came to tho question of dividing the House upon the point, these gentlemen called out, " carried on division." The Premier said : No, I will tsike the names upon it ; and when thoy found that the names were to be taken, if I recollect the facts aright, they said " unanimous," and it was carried unanimously. Was there any excitement or any agitation on tho part of tho Protestant element of the Province of Quebec during that time ? No. Months have elapsed, and it is only when some of the — shall I call them fanatics ? — I think it would bo a good name to give them — in tho Province of Ontario raised, for what purpose I do not know, this agitation, that this question comes up. A good many of them are friends of tho right hon. the First Minister, and I fear ho has often expressed the wish : " Save me from my friends." But whatever may have been their motive, it could have boon no very good one, for there is no object to be gained by the agitiition of this question, but to create trouble, dissension and bad feeling throughout the community. I re- echo the sentiments of tho hon. gentleman who last spoke, that Christian charity should prevail, and that in place of sowing dissension broadcast throughout this land we ought to endeavour to harmonise in a community, so mixed at this, tho different religious elements, in place of sowing discord among them and creating feelings such as have been by these men to-day. If there are any people aggrieved in relation to this matter, who are they ? Are they the Protestants of Ontario ? What right have they to dictate to us, the Protestants of the Province of Quebec, as to how we shall dispose of our own money ? I have heard the arguments they have used by tho>:e who sustained this motion, that this property was given for a special purpose. But how is this money voted ? For what purpose is it given ? It is not given for purpose of education, for that is the object for wich those who receive it intend to appropriate it ? Let any one come and reside in the Province of Quebec and become acquainted with the institutions which are to get this money, and ho will find that they are promoting education among a large and the most numerous class of the people in the Province of Quebec in a manner that reflects credit upon their institutions. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I lespect the Roman Catholics of the country. It will ever be my wish to live in harmony and peace with them, and whenever I can promote their interests fairly, giving due consideration to the interests of the Protestant community, they will always find, as they always have foi th fet ha m( an V ii. 61 found during my past career, that I will do it. Our Provincial Logislutiiro voted this money — and I will not say it was a wise thing to do, bocau80 it has raised to feeling which I regret has boon raised, and which 1 will say now never ought to have been raised by the people of Ontario. It has raised that feeling, but as the money has been voted, I say it is the money of the people of the Province of Quebec, and the Protestants of the Province of Ontario have no excuse for their agitation. Years after the incorporation took place, and many mouths after the money was voted, they have no right to create that agitation, whatever may have been the motive for it. They have no right to intorfero with the manner in which we, in the Province of Quebec, shall dispose of our own money. I represent and have some control over a loading organ of the Pross in that Province. I have taken very little part, through that paper, in this discussion, but throughout the whole of it, while 1 did not approve of Mr. Mercier's course in voting the money, I juiitifiod the action of this Government to-day in refusing to veto this Bill. When one of these Provinces, coming within the limits of the power given them by the British North America Act, chooses to dispose of its money in the way this money has been dis- posed of, I justify this Government in not interfering with the operation of the Act; and if they had intci'fcred, they would have met with any censure which I, in my place here and thiough the newspaper which I control, could have passed on them. 1 am glad to say the Government has pursued the course they have. I am glad to say they have done the right thing. From the standpoint of a Maritime Province man, coming from one of the two or three smallest Provinces of this Dominion, it would be a sacrifice of the dearest interests and the greatest security which the British North America Act gives to the smaller Provinces if the Government had l)een allowed to interfere within the limits of the powers of the Legislatures of these Provinces in the way some hon. gentlemen desire they should. I have simply risen to state these few facts, in order to justify by this explanation the vote which I shall give. 1 feel that outside of everything else, 1 am a Protectionist of my own Pro- vince. I desire to protect the rights of the smaller Provinces of this Dominion against the superior ones and I think that the people of the Province of Ontario, where this agitation has entirely arisen, have gone beyond their limits in this matter. The agitation has been created in the Province of Ontario; it has been swelled into importance by the agitation, the ministerial agitation — 1 do not mean governmental; I moan ministerial in another sense. And for what purpose ? Ought it to be desire of any man who seeks to secure the future peace, harmony and prosperity of this country, to create dissensions between the lloman Catholics and Protestants, between the French Canadians and Ontarians ? No, Sir. We ought to promote harmony if we can ; we ought to endeavor to remove religious dissensions ; wo ought to endea- vor to keep within the bounds of the political rights which the British North Ame- rica Act has established for the different Provinces of the Dominion, and we ought to be especiallj' careful that the larger Provinces, or the Dominion, should not attempt to assume a jurisdiction they have no right to exercise, and to infringe upon the privileges and rights of the smaller Provinces. With these few remarka, I shall endeavor to bring to a conclusion anything I have to say upon this matter, and i should not have spoken upon it were it not that 1 did not wish to give a silent vote on an im| ortant motion like this. I wish to say one thing more, and I hope the right hon. the First Minister will receive it in the spirit in which I give it. I do not think it is good policy for my right hon. friend to put up his followers behind him to defend the course the Administration will pursue in relation to this matter ; and in placeof protracting a discussion such as this, the right hon. gentleman or the gentle- man in his Cabinet who occupies a prominent position in the Orange A8sociation,which is laigely at the bottom of this matter, or my respected fiiend the Minister of Justice, who is so able to do it, should rise and state the policy of the Government. I now call upon one or other of them, I do not care which — and I believe I have the right to do so, under the practice of the Imperial Parliament on such an occasion — to G2 state what is the policy of the Administration on this matter. Lot thorn como out frankly and stale if they are prepared to stand by the course they have pursued of not touching the Bill, of not attempting to disallow it, but of lotting it take its operation, emanating as it does from the power which had tho constitutional right to pass it. I say, if one or other of those gontlcmon will get up and make a declara- tion on this point, I believe they will squelch out tho efforts which arc being made to sow dissension throughout this land, and will put an end to this senseless debate which has been brought befdro this Parliainent. M. McCarthy, (Simcoe n. rimnq.) At tho close of the sitting last evening I rose somewhat reluctantly, and only because I thought if I did not seize that opportunity, you, Sir, would call in the members, and the opportunity of addressing the House would be lost. I thought then, and I think now, that considering tho nature of tho motion which is before the House, it would not have boon unreasonable for tho Govornmont, or some member of the Government, to have defended their action in tho past in allowing tho Bill under discussion, and to have given those reasons to us which, perhaps, would have justified their course, and, 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 fiee Parliament and free country, there would be no member found out of the 200 odd who compose this House, to give voice to the opinions of a very large body of the people who have been aroused with regard to this measure. I say when my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) gave reasons why he thought this Bill should still be disallowed, notwithstanding the action of the Government, when he assailed the action of the Government upon constitutional grounds, and when to that was added the attack made by my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace), ani the more elaborate attack upon legal grounds, made by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Barron), it does appear to me that it would have been ordinary courtesy to those hon. 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 consideration. But, although my hon, friend from Lincoln (Mr. Rykert) is a gentleman of long standing in the House, he frankly told us that he prayed, as I 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. Mr. McCarthy. I must have misunderstood the hon. gentleman, and, of course, take that back. Then my hon. fi-iend, the other gentleman to whom I have referred (Mr. Colby), who .vpoke so feelingly and eo ably, whose voice we aro always flad to listen to, who.se wisdom we all recognize, is possibly a prospective Minister ; ut, although that be so, I think it would btill have been perhaps better if we had heard from an actual Minister, and not a prospoctivo Minister, on a question of this importance. It may be that before this debate closes tho House will hear from the Treasury benches upon this subject. Their silence so far in tho discussion is, I con- sider, hardly giving us fliir play. Fortified by the leaders opposite, fortified by the gi-eat number of hon. gentlemen who aro going to support them in this House, I do think they should have allowed the small band hero who are opposed to their action any possible advantage that could be given by the debate, and not have remained .' 1$ 63 silont, but have fjivon the reasons why the course of the Government should be sustained. However that may bo, 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 1 propose taking on this important matter, and in which I will have to separate myeolf 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 bo considered as to its constitutionality in the narrower sense of the term, and as to its constitutionality in the wider sense of term. If it is ultra vires the Lcginlature of Quebec, it ought to have been disallowed. If it is intra vires, if it is within the powers of'the Legislature of that Province, then I still say it ought to have been disallowed. But the matters are ho entirely separate and distinct — the one resting upon legal constitutional principles of one description, and the other depending upon consideration of a widely different character, that I have to ask tho permission of the House to deal with these matters separately and dis- tinctly. J'ir.st, it is well we hhould clearly understand the character of the legislation which is a.ssailcd. It will not do to ignore the past ; it will not do, as the hon. memboi" for Stanstoad (Mr. Colby) did, to say it is not necessary to consider fine spun legal argumentB, or to deal with the question ii, that way. All these questions have first to be considered from tho legal point of view. We have a very large volume, not down to tho present time, of the cases which have been disallowed, most of them because they were beyond the power of the Provincial Legislatures to enact. Therefore, the tii.^t question which the Minister of Justice hud to report upon was whether this Act Avas constitutional in that sense of the term. The first question was whether it was within the powers of the Legi.'s, competent to giv? an opmion in matters of civil law. Sir James Marriott was skilled in civil law and m ecclesiastical law, and he wjis called upon for a report— merely for a report, because the responsibility' still rested with the law officera of the Crown. Bxtracte ! i . ! 07 of his report havo been published, and we are more or loss familiar wiih thorn, and Ills report OBtablitihed, and the law oliicertj adopted his conclusion, that the Jesuit 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 peiiod, 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 listen, for one moment, to their holding their estates, but the other religious communities are to hv 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 necessaiy under the treaty (afterwards, under the Statute of 1774, they were continued in their possession), in order that ctfcct 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, 1703, in the instructions whicli were given by the Earl of Kgremont to Governor Murray, we find these Avords : " Tliougli the Ivirig has, in tlio 4th article of iho Definitive Treaty, agreed to grant tho '■ Liberty ol"lh« Catholic religion lo the inhabitants of Canada ; " and though His Majesty is far IVom entertaining tlin most distant thoughts of reslaining his new Roman Catholic suljjecls from professing llie worship of their religion according to the rites of the Homisii Church, yet the I'nnditioii ex|>ressed in the sam« article must always be remembered, viz: — " As fur as the laws of Great Britain permit :" which laws prohibit absolutely all popish hierarchy in any of the dominions belonging to the thrown of (Ireal Britain, and can only admit of a toleration of the t'xercise of that rt ligion. This matter was clearly undt^rstood in the negotiation of the Delinilive Treaty. The French Minist'Ts proposed lo insert she worils coinme ci-dcvanl in order that the Momisli religion should continue to bo exercised in tho same manner as under their Government ; and they did not given up the point till ih'iy were plainly told that it would be deceiving them lo admit those words, for the King had noi i.lio jiowor lo tolerate that religion in any other manner tli.in " as far as tin laws of Great Britain |iermit.'' These laws must be your guide in any disputes iliat may arise on this subject ; but at the ^ame linn that I point oulto you tho necessity of adher- ing to them, and of alien ling with the utmost vigilance lo the behaviour of llio Priests, the King relies on your aiUing with all proper caution and prudence in I'egard lo a matter of so delicate a nature as this of religion ; and that you will, as far as you can consistently with your duly in the execution of the laws and with the safety of the country, avoid every thing that can give tho least unnecessary alarm or disgust lo IIis Majesty's new subjecls." That is the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. "We rind in 1705 these ins- tructions further given, and they are found in the commission to the King's Eeceiver ticneral, and read as follows : " And whereas the lands of several religious societies in the said Province, particularly those of the society of the Jesuits, aie, or will become, i)art of His Majesty's- revenue, you are therefore to endeavor, by agreements to be made with the persons interested for the present in any of the said estates, lo lake the said estates into your charge, giving unto them respectively such com- petent allowance ihereon for their lives, as you nay judge proper, taking care that these lands may not be sequestered or alienated from His Majesty ' Again, in letter from Lord Shelburno to Governor Carleton, November 14, 1767, we road : " It has been represented to His Majesty lliat the Jesuits of Canada make large remittances to Italy, and that they imperceptibly diminish tlieir elfects for that purpose • • • Too much care cannot be taken that they do not embezzle an estate of which thi-y enjoy only the life-rent and which must become on their demise a very considerable resource to the Province, in case His Majesty should be pleased to cede it for thai purpose." As to effect which is to be given to the treaty, altht)ugh perhaps I have said enough on that point, I want to fortify my position. I do not expect hon. gentlemen will 68 be willing to taka my ipse dixit in a matter of this kind, and I dosire to establibh from the public I'ecords thedoctines which were lield by the law officers at the time, in order to make ffood my point. Sir James Marriott reported at great length, and the book is accessible to all, and no doubt many hon. members have taken advantage of it. Ho reports on this particular question, which hon. members can easily understand when we look at the terme of the treaty. Let me read from it : " His Britannic Majpsty agrpes to grant the iibprty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will consequently pive the most elFeclual orders that his new Roman Galhoiic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the riles of the Roman Church as far as the law of Great Britain permit." Now, we all see th? difficulty that at once arose. The laws of Great Britain at that time hardly pormi ted the exercise of the lioman Catholic religion. The law officers of the Crown, how Jver, decided that this was not to bo treated as a dead letter, but that full eflect in every way must bo given to the treaty. The difficulty was in reconciling tho profession of the Koman Catholic religion which tho laws of Great Britain, which pratically forbid the practice of that religion, and so the proposition is worked out. And how is it worked out ? Sir James Marriott gave an opinion on this point as follows : — " Now, I consider that the laws and constitution of this Kingdom, permit perfect freedom o- the exercise of tiny religious worship in the colonies, but not of all sorts of doctrines, nor the mainf tenance of any foreign autho-ily, civil or ecclesiastical, which doctrines and authority may alfecl the supremacy of the Crown or safely of Your Majesty and the realm ; for a very great and neces- sary distinction, as it appears to m", must be taken between tlw profession of the worship of the Romish religion, according to the rites of it, and its principles of church government. To use the French word, the culle, or forms of worhip or ritual are totally distinct from some of its doctrines. The first can, may and ought, in my opinion, in good policy and justice to be tolerated, though the second cannot be tolerated." Mr. Wedderburn, afterwards Lord Loughborough, gave an opinion on the same subject. Speaking more especially in regard to the Jesuits, he said : " The establishment of the first (the Jesuits) is not only incompatible with the constitution of an English province, but with every other possible form of civil society. By the rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every government. They are not owners of their estates but Irustes for purposes dependent upon the pleasure of a foreigner, the General of their order. Three great Catholic slates have, upon grounds of policy, exp^-lled them. It would be singular if the lirst Pro- testant stale in Europe should protect an e.stablishmenl that ere now must have ceased in Canad;: had ihe I'Yench Government continund. • • * It is therefore, equally just and expedient, in this instanc to assert the sovereignly of the king and to declare the lands of llii Jesuits are vested in His Majfy, allowing at the same lime to the Jesuits now residing in Canada liberal pensions out of the incomes of their estates." This opinion Avas reported by him to tho law officers of the Crown, and the opinion of the law officers of the Crown framed upon it is the foundation of ^vhat was after wards embodied in regard to this subject in the Quebec Act. Then we find in th.; Quebec Act that while the religion of the inhabitants of the country Avaa specially protected, that tho i-oligious communities were excepted therefrom and that they were loft to bo dealt with by the CroAvn, thereby leaving those matters just as they stood —owing to the conquest, by virtue of that conquest and by virtue of that proclamation— leaving matters exactly as they stood with regard to the religions communities, and dealt whith tho people of tho country as distinct and separable from thoir religious communities. Then let me read what was the outcome of the Quebec Act. It was passed in 1774, and in 1775 express instructions are given to Guy Carleton, tho Captain General and tho Governor in Chief of tho Province of Canada, and, these are the instructions : 69 " Thai the S)ciely of Jesu? b ) suppressed and tlissolveil, and no long ir conlhued us a body corporate and politic, and all their rights, possessions, and proptrty shall be vested in U<, for such l)urpo8e8 as we may hereafter think 111 to direct or aopoint ; but we think fit to declare (Jur iioyal intention to be, thai the present members of the said Society as established at Quebec, shall be allowed sufllcleat stipends and provisions durmg their natural lives." Xow, can it be reasonably argued, that this estate of the Jesuits did not vest and ])a3S to the Crown, and were not held by the Crown ? I have spoken of this siinplv as a lawyer, I have spoken of it simply upon the grounds and with reference to the authorities which I iind I offer no opinion of my own about it, and I simply state facts as 1 find them. Let me follow up a little farther to see what becomes of these matters. Sir James Marriott's opinion is again invoked, but I will not trouble the House with this long exact. Sufficient to say that it substantially agrees with his Jormer opinion In a few words, just to sommarise what he states, he says: " In a few words the Society of Jesus ha 1 not and cannol have any estate in Gmada legally and completely vested in Ih'm at any time, and therefore could not and cannot transfer the same iielore nor after the term of eighteen months so as to make a gooi lille lo purchasers, eithpf with or without the powers or ratilication of the Father General who, as he could not retire, so he cannot retain any possession in Canada, sinci the lime limile I for the sales of esi lies there agreeably to the terms of the treaty ; because he is as incapable of becoming a British subject, as he was of being a French subject ; nor can Uie individuals of the communiiies of Ihe Jesuits in Canada, like or transfer what the Father General cannol take or transfer ; nor can they, having but onecomiaon slock with all to olher communities of their order in every pari of the globe, hold immoveable pos- sessions, to be applied lor the joint benefit of those c immunities which are resident in foreign states; and which may become Ihe enemies of His Majesty and his Government." Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). consfiscated. That is the third opinion as to how the estates are Ml'. McC.\RTIir. It is the third opinion. It is in the same report to which I have referred, or rather it is the second opinion on this special question submitted 10 Sir James Marriott with regard to the Jesuits' properties. Now, in 1770, General Amherst, I believe, petitioned the Crown to be compensated for the services which lie 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 bo compensated, and compensated out of the Jesuits' estates. I only state ihat to show that those estates were dealt with at that time beyond all peradventure as a part of the Crown lands. Now I would read an extract which shows the diffe- rent manner in which the Jesuits were treated from the other religious communities ; by-and-bye,perhajis, it may be my duty to point out wliy it was so, for I cannot very well, however mi> h I would wish to avoid it, however much I would wish to do as my hon. friend beiiind me (Mr. Colby) did, ignore the past, I am afraid it will be impossible to treat this subjc properly without some little reference to the histo- rical facts we have relating tu the Jesuit Oitler. JJut however that may be, we find that the Royal Instructions in 1772 wore conveyed in this way : " It was declared thai for the present and until we can be fully informed of Ih'i true slate of the religious communities, and how far they are or are not essential to the exercise of the religion of the Church of Home as allowed in the said province, lo permit Ihoso religious communiiies to ivmain in possession of their estates." There, was a clear line of demarcation in dealing with the ordinary religious com- munities. I perhaps, am not familiar enough with the language to state what that difference was, but there was a clear distinction drawn between the ordinary reli- gious communities, if I may so express it, and the particular body which is now more especially under discussion. Now we have come down very nearly to 17!) I or 1792. Wo have got things down to the period in which the Province was granted a species of representative government which continued up to the Union of 18-40 oi« '!.;? TO wi 1841 ; and wo find, if we consult hisloiy, thiit there was a loud ]>rote.st against the lung ap])ropriating this property'. It was no denial of hia right, but it was iigainst the wisdom and fairness and justice of his handing over this property to the Gene- ral wlio had conquered (ho country ; the allegation being put up then, and then, so far as I know, for tho firist time, that this pi'opcrt}' had been really given to the Jesuits for the purpose, and in trust, for education. I think. Sir, that if yon will consult Mr. (rarnoau's history, which I believe is the history most acceptable to my hon. friends from the Province of Quebec, that it Avill be found as early as 1800 that the matter was brought prominently before the Legislature, and from that time out the agitation in that view was kept up so biiskly and so fiuccessfullj^ that in 1830 or in 1831 tlie Crown ceded and granted to the Province all these Jesuits' estates for the express purpose for which it had been aske. >ver General, shill be ajiplied lo ^h^i purposes of educalion exclusively." Again, in 1849, y Victoria chapter 59, another legislative declaration, this time by the united Provinces, says : " That the revenue and interests arising from the r«ai or funded properly forming part of the estates of the late (Jrder of the .lesuits and now dl Ihe disposal ol' llie Legisliiture for educational purposes in Lower Canada, bhall bp, and are herehy declared to bt) applicablo to such purposirs, and lo no othtr." And, finally in 1856, 19-20 Victoria chapter 54, the legislation on the niatter says : " The estates and property of the lale Order of the Jesuits, whether in possession cr reversive, includinsf all sums funded or in .ostcd, or lo be funded or invested as forming paii th'Teof arc hereby appropriated for the purjioses of this Act and shall form a fund lobe called the Lower Canada Superior Educalion Investment I'Mnd." I think, if there ever was a little to an estate or property recogniziod by legislative 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 tlie title to the Jesuits' estate. When we are asking His Excellency the Governor General to disallow tiiis Act, when we are taking upon ourselves the responsibility of t^ayinip yem or nay on that question, it is impossible that we can deny to ourselves the opportunity of scrutinis- ing every letter in it ; and I find here : "The Act of the L-'gislature, 48 Victoria, chiipler 10, notwithstanding section 5 of the sad Act, and notwithstanding any other Act 10 the contrary, shall apply lo the said eslates, ihe pro- ceeds wher-'of may be applied also, noiwillistanding any Act lo the contrary, for the above meti- lioned purposes, or for any other purposes apjiroved by the Legislature. So that this special property, set apart for education in the Province of Quebec — not the education of the majority, to whom my friend behind me pays such humble court, but all the people of the Province of Quebec, the minority as well as the majorit}^ — has been swept away by this enactment ; although, when the Premier was taxed in (Jueliec the other day with the question, his answer was by no means such as might have been expected, but was evasive, and not. I am afraid, aitogeth*!- according to the record. If ever there was legislation which we could itiiei-foro with on such giwinds it is this ;— proiierty given by the Crown, for the exprc'^s purpose of the eancalion of the i>eoplo of Iho Province ; property' which ixjmained for that purpose from the year 1831. to the year 188R ; property which a Parlia 71 ment, elected under an excitement of race and revenge, has decided should be taken away from the minority,aH well an the majority,and dedicated toother purposes, and other uses. Well, Sir, I say — and that is my first proposition — if 1 have satistiod this House, that this property was public domain — ai»d, if I am not able to aatisfy the "JIouso of that, I am incapable of making any statement — tiion the proposition with which 1 started, is made out, that this Act. uses Her Most (jracious Mnjesty's name as enacting that, iior own estates, or the estates she had suri-endered to tiie Province of Quebec, for the purposes of education, were not hers, not the Province's. All this history of the past is to be blotted out ; it ib to be all cliild's play ; the Crown did not own, the Crown did not get, the Crown did not take, the Crown did not grant a rod, but went through afiiico, when it dedicate the ])ropoity for o lucational purposes, at tirst to the Province ofQuebec, and again, to the Uiiilcd Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. All that Avas humbug, nonsense, ohiM's play ; the property was all the time vested in either the Sovereign Pontiii", or in the Order of Jesuits ; and, as a result, the Pope is applied to, us the only authority which could authorise the dispo- sal of this property, wliich, most people had thought belonged to the Crown, for permission to dispose of it. Lot me do no injustice : let mo road the words again : " Up 1 r Ihfse circumstances, I dccrn it my iluly to ,i'-k Your I^min»'nce iT yoii rpo any serious objecihiii lo tiia Govt'rnniKnl's selling the properly, i)»iiilinij; a linal sHlllemenl of ih:) quesUon of the .Jesuits' estates " If the Supremacy Act is in force, and whether it is in force or not, 1 hold it to be, and I beleive it can be established to be, a well settled princi])le of international law, that no foreign authority or power — I care not whether it be temporal or spiritual — can be allowed to interfere in the atfairs of another country or another state : and if that be the rule of international law — as I think my hon. friends, if they choose to consult the authorities, will find in to be — how much more does that principle apply to the municipal law of the country, and to the law of Elizabeth, which has been handed down and made specially applicable to this country by the Quebec Act of 1774. How was it possible, 1 say, to tell that an Act of Parliament would bo submitted to His Excellency the Governor General, that he was to pass upon it by the advice of his Minister of Justice,and that the Minister of Justice should send it back — how ? Why, Sir, with a dozen other Bills of no more conse- quence 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 — tho hon. Minister of Justice reported this was a fiscal matter. Sir I do not undofstand the Queens English if this can properly bo described :w a fiscal matter. But so it passed before His P-xcelloncy and upon that His Excellency has actetl ; and I trust the opportunity will bo afforded to His Excelloncy to reconsider that question, and see whether Her Majesty's name is thus to be trailed in the dust, is thus to be dishonored, and whether this legislation should not disappear from our Statute-books, whether it bo provincial or federal. Well, I assail this, not merely upon the ground. I assail it upon other grounds. I say that either this Act is unconstitutional, that it is ultra vires of tho Province, that itought to have been disallowed upon that ground, because it violates a fundamental princi- ple of this country, that all religions are free and equal before tho law ; or, if that "be not so as a legal proposition, then. Sir, I claim that there should have been exer cised that judgment, that discretion, that policy, which would at once stamp out in whatever Province it roared ita head, the attempt which has boon made ho to esta- blish a kind of State Church amongst us. Sir, is that law or it is not ? We find that in the good old days a Protestant Church had to be despoiled ; and for my part. Sir, 1 have never regretted that the Clergy lieserves were secularised, and I do not be- n % lieve that anyone who belongs to that church can say that that measure lias 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 aa a church, holding no legal pretence of superiority' over other religious bo- dies, 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 cotters. Now, what do we find in this Bill, enacted by the United Parliament of Canada — an Act referring to Upper Canada and to Lower Canada, and, BO far as I know, to this very moment the law of the Province of Quebec ? Firnt, we do know that the law of the Provinces which were in force at the time of the British North America Act, remained in force until repealed. And what do we find ? <' Whereas the recogniiion oflegnl equality among all religious ilenominations is an ailmilted principle of colonial lepislaiion ; and whereas, in lh'> stale and con(iiii')n of this Province, to which such a principle is peculiarly applicable, il is desirable the same should receive the sanction of the direct legislative of authority, recognizing and declaring ihe same as a fundamental principle of civil policy." Therefore the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession, without discrimi- nation or preference, so long as the same be not made an excuse for acts of mali- ciousness, or a jtistification of practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the Provinces, is, by the constitution and laws of these Provinces, allowed to all Hor Majesty's subjects therein. There is a legislative declaration of what every man who lives in this country has alwaj'^s understood to be the law. Does the enactment of the Province of Quebec violate that principle "' Is the grant of $400,000, to be dis- tributed under the sanction of Ilis Holiness of Eome, not a grant of publi* money to a particular church. I am not saying whether the church may or may not be the correct church ; I am simply speaking of the legal principle. I ask, how is that ? Let me give you an answer from the books of the Legislatux'e when the Cler- gy Reserves were secularised. What were those reserves ? They wore lands be- longing to the Crown, held in trust for the support and maintenance of the Protes- tant faith, and held to apply to the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. When these lands were secularised, it was declared that the Act was for the purpose of sweeping away the last vestige of connection between Church and State. The holding of these lands by the Crown for this purpose formed a connect- ing link between Church and State, which Parliament stated should be swept away, which the representatives of the Province of Quebec joined with those from the other Province in saying should be swept away. Will any man of common sense tell me that this grant of $400,000, given as it is given, is not a recognytion of Church and State ? How is it given ? " Thewn opinion as to whether that opinion is well or ill- founded. But, in practical matters, lot us see what this order lava down. First,, as to tho duties of a judge, tho writer sayf: " We are lolil, also, il is by no moans deci'led that a judge is bound n^ver to acc-^pt money gil\s from a party to a suit before him. If Ih- Rifl were profTered with IhM view of influencing a prospective judgment, contrary lo juslic, the judge should, indeed, sternly refuse aciinpianc^ ; ' i»ut, Ihe sentence having been already pronounced, it is a mailer of controversy ' whelli'The may not retain what might then seem a mere offering of gratitude from one ben-^litHd by the dehver.-d sentence, even when ihis hail been contrary lo justice. Decisions of this character subvert fuiida- menlal notions as to right and wrong. Let us lake Ihe case of a person knowing all about a ihefl ami accofding hush-money from the guilty parly. According lo received id>as, the com|pucl would be criminal. Father Gury, however, decides that, jirovifled Ifie pnrsnn bribed be not m-n/ficw bound to give information, the bargain would be quiie lawful, ' as without injustice he mighl keep silence about the Ihiefl, in dilference to his entreaties ' * * tli-Tefore, espari, wilhoul injustice, silence might bo observed in deference to gifts given or promised." I need not tell hon. gentlemen who havo paid any attention to tho subject, that Father Gury is a comparatively modern writer, that his works were published under the Propaganda, and thorofor under tho highest authority, and his works are for morals, for teaching in tho schools, and for the guidance of those who desire instruc- tion of this kind. So far in regard to the judges. But there is '-^o a law for witnesses, and the law for witnesses is even more dangerous than tho luw laid down for the judges. The writer says ; " The first point laid down is, that no obligation to make reparation can atlacli to any one who lias given false witness from invincible ignorance, inadverlance, or delusion, a pro[M sition which, though not wholly free from objections, we will not canvass. But Father Gury proceeds lo con- sider the case of one who, with the view of supplying deeds Ihiit have been lost, and iiU promoting the success of indisputable rig i (ihe indispulableness of such right being I-ft to ihe subjective test of individual apprecialien), eiiaer reproduces, that is, (orge?, or tampers with a writing, a chiro- graph, or a deed of acknowledgment ; and lie concludes thai, though a person acting thus, ' would, indeed, sin venially on the score of a lie, tt. document produ<;ed not being Ih • authentic one, on llie strength of which judgment should resi , and though he miirht possibly incur a grave sin against charity toward himself by exposing his person lo imminen ). ril of very severe penallies in the likely event of detection ; nevertheless, he would be wholly tree from all sin against mutual justice, and would consequently stand absolved from all obligations lo make restitulioa.' " 78 Ml*. CUKJIAX. Will the lion, gentlomun pivo tho authority ? Ml'. McC.\ RTV. I Jim quoting from tho Quarterly Heview of 1815. Mr. J)ESJAKDI>^S. Who ie tho writer ? Mr. McCARTY. I cannot tell. Mr. CURRAN. IIiis tho lion. t,'ontlorann consulted Father (rury in tho origi- nal? Mr. MoCAR'fllV. I loavo that for tho hon. gentleman to do. I do not sup- po80 a writer in a groat magazine like tho Quarterly review miHrepresonts Father Gury ; if the hon. gentleman tliinUs ho, I rather imagine ho will find hiiUHolt mistaken. If he will take the trouble to road the article, which was not written i/i a spirit of liostility hut rather of onquary for the truth, 1 shall bo glad. I ha vo now done with that part of tho subjoct. But I think thoro are people in this coun- try, the fair sex, who ought to bo protected. It seems thoro is a rule, a law for them also, and that breach of promise is not on improper act in certain events anij in certain ctisos. Tho writer says : '< In Iho matter of plighted troth wa loam from Gury, ' (tint he who has sworn it to a girl, rich and heullhy * * is not boiin t by his oath should she hiippen to have become poor or rallen into bail health.' Again we aro inrorniol ihit a probiblo opinion, conteninceil by St. Liguon, would allow an engagement to be Irrokea oil' if a ' fat inheritance ' should accrue, soriounly mollify- ing the status as to fortune of either parly, and the case is thus illustrated. ' Edniuad had b^'tro- tlied himself to ll^^len, a girl of Uio same station an! fortune as his own. As he was on the very point a deceased undo. Wherefore, ho ropmliates Ilnlen, that ho may marry another with a (or- tune to match. It seems that Edmund should not be disturbed for this. Jilting is no unfrequeni liraclice, bui it is striking to lind it juslili^d in a handbook of morals, whenever ' faiih could be kept only by the surrender of a big advanlagj which would b» tantamount to great loss.' " That is confortablo doctrine for ono side, but rather uuconfortablo for the other. Mr. MITCHELL. It is hard on the girls. Mr. McCarthy. Yes, as my hon. freind says, it is hard on the girls. I will pass over tho next extract in consideration sor the galleries. If this is any- thing like A proper statement of tho moral teaching of tho order, I hardly think it is one that ought r.ot to be bonussed, to use a familiar torm, by any of our Ijocai Legislatures. But what as regards the history of this oi*der ? Is it dispited as an Listorical fact that they are responsible for the expulsion of the Huguenots ? 1 trow not. Mr. LANGELIER (Quebec). It is disputed. Mr. McCarthy. I am astonished to learn it; F thought it wordd not bo di.spii ted. Is it doubted that they brouth about tho revocation of the .Kdicv of Nantes .' It is doubted that they were responsible for the causing the Thirty Years' War '! It is seriously open to question that they had much to do with precipitating the Fraco-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 wore concerned in precipitating that war, which, as we all know, occurred in xjomparativoly modern times. Mr. BERGERON, in whose interest ? Mr. McCarthy, in the interest of the order and body to which iheybeloug, 7!) in tlio intoro.ll of tlio cliurcli, of which tliey arc tlic li;^hL liorHo — llio CohhucIvH, llio iilviincod guuid. Now, T nuppoae CiirdiuHl Manniii^'H 8(uloinonf with regard to ilioii. will not, bo doiii(>d lo ho, at all cvont.s, an nuthcnlii' Htatoniont ; and Canlinal ..Mannin<^, in hin hook ol' Hcrmons puhlihliod l»y J>utry of PutornoHtor How, at pago 187, miys writing of tiio JoHuit order : ' Tlial it (fmbodii's Hid ch/iractor of ils lbiin(l"r, lh<» sam*! en'T^'y, persero ranee ami onduraac<>, t is his own prns-ncM slill proloiiKiMj, Hi') same pirpelualeil onl'T, oven in the spirit uiid manner of ii- working, llxml, unil'orni and cJiungeleKg." Tlial in within tho lifo of the dintinguiHhod prolate who wpoaka of llioni as hoing llio sumo an thoy wero 300 yoarn ago. Mr. BERGKRON. Wo do not deny that. Mr. l\rcOA]lTIIY. No person will deny that. Then, it is usoIosm (o continue the argument, it is useless to n>ake citations; hut I do think thal^ their oxpuluion tVom France in 1880 would bo of interest to my hon. friends, and that it would not liuve been ulto^^i iher treated au of no conHoquonco. It is strictly true that Franco is now a Jtepublic, enjoying a froo Govornment, but it is porfeclty clear that the Josuittj were o.xpellod, and the gentleman who had charge of the educational department in l''runci> jmt forward those grounds for the reason for their expulsion. It' I cilo from past history I will bo told : " Oh, the order may have changed ; " and if I cite from modern days I dare say that there will ho some other answer, bat I do say this, and 1 think we ought all to bo willing to accept it, that everybody else cannot always have been in the wrong, and JoHuits always in the right. Thoy have been expelled from every country timo and time again. Mr. BBR( i i<]RON. But they are back again. Mr. McCARTIIY. Yes, they aro back again. Mr. AMYOT. Thoy wore not then expolled from llussia. Mr. McCarthy. 'I'hey were, and I will give the hon. gentleman the date of ilioir expulsion. Uaving boon oxpoUod from the Catholic couiitrios, they found a iuubor of refuge in Russia and Prussia, after being suppressed by the Sovereign Pontiff, and, having lived there under the protection of that (rovernmont, their edu- ratiou and training, of those whom they lirought up wore found incompatible, as tliey wore found olsowhero, and must always bo found, according lo their teachings, incompatible to State Government or to any organised condition of society. These arc the reuaons which made not only the expulsion of the Jesuits from Russia neces- wiry, but also brought about, as we tind Iho putting an end to ''the conconlat " which, up to a certain time, had existed between the Court of St Petersburg and tho Sovereign Pontiff at Rome. I will refer to what Mr. Ferry said in introducing this measure in Franco for tho expulsion of tho 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 ter- med even remotely tho 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 to have admitted this Act to remain in force, or whether it is not proper and right that this Act should still be vetoed. Tho measure in the French Chamber, as explained, is chiefly directed against the Jesuits on tho gronnd that " they aro the enemies of the stiite, that their teachings are in opposition to tl»e principles of government, and would suppress all freedom of education. " Many other reasons wore given against tho Jesuits by Mr. Ferry, and the following anvong tho rest. He quoted tho decree of the Parliament of 1826 which recites : !:!! 80 ^ M " Thai llie ♦•ilicls by wich Jesuits liml been banished and tlissolved, werrt Tounded upon the recognised incompulibihly of Iheir principles with Ihe independence of every Governmenl. " Mr. BERGEEON. What are you reatling from ? Mr, McCarthy. I am reading fiom the published report of the dobatos that took place in Paris at Lho time of the expulsion of the Jesuits. Mr. MULOCK. What report is it ? Mr. McCarthy, it is a condensation of the report of the debates. Mr. Ferry then goes on to say, from tho statement of the Archbishop of Paris, Mgr. Darboy: '• Th.at 111" Jesuits were neither subject to the jurisdiction of the diocesans, nor obedient to the laws of ihH Stale. " And further: " That the Slate is, in temporal matters, subordinate to the church, and has only the authority which on inferior tribunal possesses, lor conlirming the sentence of Ihe superior ; that in ((ueslioii ofmarriagi', burial, institutions for charitable purposes, liberty of conscience, and questions of the moral law, the tpirilual power may intervene to correct or annul the civil laws. " Fuither, Mr. Ferry quoted from some passages from public works, showing : " A detestable hostilitv to ail the laws and institutions of modern society. These works dis- tinct y taught the divine right of kings, and advoceted to carrying on of religious wars. Tliev aUa!;ked the revolution, and glorified the revocation ofthe Edict of Nantes; they calumnialiil Nicker and Turgot ; they rejected the principle of the national sovereignly, and they taught tliu France was beaten in the late war because she had des'Tled the Pope. In these books univers;il suflrage and trial by jury were denounced as vexatious institutions, liberty of conscience and 1 1 worship were condemned, and the liberty of the press was asserted to be a principle that has nevr bcou udmitted by a wise Government. " Wheiher those are principles w'.iich ought to be endorsed by this Parliament it wil' be for the House to judge. Mr. BERGEROX. Were they expelled then ? Mr. McCarthy. Yes. Mr. BERGERON. But they are there now, Mr. M( CARTJIY. The hon. gentleman has perhaps more information than [ have on tJiat subject, but that they were expeiled is beyond question. I told tlio hon. member for Jiellechiisse (Mr. Amyot) that they were expelled more than onco from Franco. They were expelled froiu Franco in 1505, at the close ofthe War of the League. Xow, I do think that in the stage of the debate it is not necessary to trouble the House by reading the decree of suppression of tho Pope in 1773 ; but surely if the order has not changed, surely if they have remained as they were, thcio is groiind for interference. I think that it was about the time of their expulsion from France, in 1762, when it was a^iked of them to change their mode of cariying on operations, and when the answer was : " Wo must continue to bo as we are . cease to exist. " I say that when those things are considered; this evidence of u statement made by the Pontiff with full knowledge of all the circumstances it is im- possible to displace ; there is no way of getting rid of that evidence. It cannot bo impugned by the members ofthe church of which the Pontiff referred to was a din- tinguished ornament. It cannot be impugned by any candid person, because tho JH 81 2(lienl to llii character of lopo Clomcnt was of tho very Iiighcst ordc; and lio stood oonspicuous- ly above liiH compeers. Now, a list was gfvon— and tlior, ibi-o, I need iioi repeat it — of the expulsion of tho Jesuits from various countries. It is not to ho lost sit^ht of that they were expelled from (Jermany in 1872. They had been admitted into Prussia by Frederick li, and why wore they e.xpelled ! It seems to me that the rea- son for their expulsi(m is particularly applicahlo to our jiosition here, for thei-o was in that couiuiy a mixed community of Protestants and Catholics. Tho .lesuits were admittcil to this country, tho corporation having- been dissolved and their having licen sent about their business by a decree to which 1 have referred. And having obtained a foothold in Prussia, what was tho result ? Let me read : " Bill ill Nditli Germany llicy Ix'cnmt^ voa powTful, owintr to lln- fnolinR Fr-''ir>ii(lc II \ui.[ (.'ivfin lliem 111 I'russiu, csi)' ci.uly in liiM lihine I'ruuiii'os ; an.i, giaauaily inoiililmg ili ■ yimiij^or ^feneration ofclei'fjy aAer tho War ol' Ijii» ralioi, succ'.v.IimI in ^|)r>).i ling iiitr,iiU'iiiiaii" view-; amoiiKi-t them, ami so hailiii;: up to tin' liitliiullii'S ol'lhi; civil govorniiii'iil which i.s^u••ll in llioFaik laws and Ih. ir own i.-xiiul^iioti. " Xow, Sir, T have done with tho extracts which I propose to mako upon that subjec*. and [ come to the more imitortani juii't of the subject under considei'iition. It may he that all I have saitl is true, and that yet if this matter — I am arijfuini; it now, of course, upon that theory — was in t!',e legislative competence of the Province, it on^hi still to remain as law. I venture, Sir, to ask the llouso seriously to consider the position in which we stand. The worsliip of what is called local autoi»omy. whitdi some gentlemen have become addicted to, is fraught, I venture to say, wiili u^reat evil to this Dominion, Our allegiance is due ti> the Dominion ol(.;anainted out, the whole body, numbering perhaps 20,000 men, is in- corporated by this little Bill of the Province of Quebec. The very words of I lu' Bill are : " All who now are or may be of that order. " I have hoard it said : Oli, you are too late. Where were you when the incorporation Act was under consido- ration ? Why did you not raise your voice the i ? Why did not the Proiestants then strike at the root of tiie evil ? I do not know, thou/'lTl am pretty familar wiih what is called the doctrine of estoppel, that any sue! doctrine can be applied to a people. I am not aware that the laches of a i\v[ of the iiKijonly wort.', to my inind uiUbrtiinuto and unhappy. Mr. Joly was one. He was, l' Indiovo, the loader of tlio T.iberal party, as my hoii. friend lias stated, hut has my hoii. friend i()r,L;"tten modern luslory '.'' lEas he forgotten that Mr. Joly was deposed I'roni his jiositiou. or rosi.u;ncd, because of the imjio.ssibility of actintf ? Ha- lie forgotten thai Mr. Joly actunlly resigned his scar, anuobcc). I have not seen it. Mr. McCAKTlIV. I cannot make (he hon. gentleman read it. And thero i- not one word from tho Pro(eatant minority. It is easy to understand lu)w thoy get on, as ho Mtys, if the}' submit to all that injustice without a word of rcmonstranco. It is easy to understand how happv they can bo if the Protestant minority are -willing simply to take what they can got, a seat here occupied by my hon. friend from Stansiead (Mr. Colby), with a .scat in (ho other llouso given to (ho roprosonta tivo of tho majcu-ity. My hon. friend telN us that no I'roi..>tant can be elected in tho Province if the majority chose. \f (he .Pro(ostants come here from thai Pro- vince only to carry out tho behests of the other side, thoy aro a deception. Wo do not realise their position, because wo understand (hat they aro ropr li"-; the 85 minority, but it appears Ihut thoy are truly the rcproscntativos of the majority, unci wo ai'o told tlial, if tliis cry in raisod, if this hoJy is assailed, if wo venture to raise our voices in this Parliament, wo arc going to raise such a cry that the Protestant roprosenlativos from the Province of (iiieboc will lose their seats. 1 cannot believe that that is possible. I cannot boliovo that my lion, friond is right in thinking so ; liut even at that expense, oven at the expense of the loss of my hon. friend from this House, which together with that of other monibcrs, would bo a calamity to the country, though 1 cannot boliovo that that would l>o the result of a fair, full, frank iind calm discussion of this subject, although it is (.no which trenches upon feelings which are guarded most sensitively, still that would have to be borne. For those leasons, 1 venture to think, it will not bo found that ray hon. friend's statements :ire correct. As ho made the statenient, my eye caught the report in a newspaper petitions wore being in the city of Montreal, that already 3,U00 names luui boon obtained to those petitions, and that more wore coming in — petitions to the (lovernor (Jencral, calling upon him to disallow this measure. )oes this look as if ihe Protestants of the Province of (iuoboc wore desirous, and willing, and anxious that this legislation should remain unchanged, or does it not look as if the Pro- testant minority in that Province wore given reasonable oncouragoment, that they would got justice — and no more than justice are they entitled to, and no more than justice I hope they will ever ask foi- — from the Parliament of this country ? Then they Avill be uj) and doing, to do their share of this legislation. But in the Legis- hiturc olthat Proviiice, composed as it is now, they cannot exjjoct it. There was lio J'rotestant representative In the Cabinet of that Province until recently, and, wluwi one was chosen, he had to be elected in spite of the vote of the Protestant minority. I can understand that, il' there wore a lighting man in thai House like the hon. member who loads the Thirl ])arty here, there might be a chance of obtaining someting like justice, but men with that skill and ability, with parlia- mentary knowledge to back it, are not to bo found every day, and we are not to ludge the Protestant representatives of the Pruvincc of (^iieliec on that high standard Wo were told that the Jlerald had not said anything about this iniquitou.s scheme, though the hon. gentleman Mr. Mitchell) said that, if he had been there, lie would not have appi'oved of it. I have not heard anyone approve of it. It has gone without to drive the French out of Ontario. My hon. iViond candidly told us that lie wouM not Invo afiprovod of it. riion, what muzzled the great organ of public opinion ? Was it because it was the ■irgan of the Government ? At one time that was the organ of tlio Protestants of I he I'rovince of Q icbec. Mr, MITCHFLL. I will tell the hon. gentleman, if ho wis'ies to know. Mr. McCarthy. I win lot the hon. gentleman tell me when I get through. Perhaps then you will allow mo to ask you a question or tw(). Mr. MITCHELL. 1 will give you perfect liberty. Mr. MoLARTlfY. I think wo aro encouraged to persevere in the course wo navo pursued, and the course we have taken, by the ebullition of popular fooling vhieh we now see is aroused and is manifesting itself in tlio Province of Quebec. It cannot now bo said that it. is only the mombei-.^ fiom Ontario who have rai.scd his cry and who are seeking tor this disallowance. Mr. MITCHELL. That is all it is. Mr. McCarthy. Then tho petitions arc very cxiraor lin iry, and I can liar Uy T 8(! accept llic contnvdiclion of ray lion. Iriond in tlio tiico of tlioso politions. I cannot do hotter than cloHO in the hin;iua<^o of Principal Cavan. I adopte ovoiy word which that distin>^ui.slic(l gcntlonian uttennl tho other ovoninj,'' in roforonce to tho question of disallowance. " ."^poiikiiig on this question, ho t>ays : "lit! was qtiitn willing,' to n-lmit llial within linMr own dislincl linut i In' autonomy of llio Provinct's oiiplil lo bo rtsptdcd. rndor 111 i Act of Federation cerlaiii suttji'cts Wfro dt'signaled as liHJonginK lo lliH Dominion, and cfrlain siil)JMcls wern named as williin liie jurisdiction of the. several Provinces, and while he htid never commilled himself lo Ihe iirincipl'', as a universal principl", 111 it Ihe central aulhorily could nol revise ihe Acts of Ihe Provinces thai were within their own luiiits ; while he dislinclly desired nol lo be conimilli! I lo that piinciple ; while he did hold tliil as ii (leneral thing it was a safe and wise principle, as long as the Province has kejii fairiy and dilinilly wiihin its own limits, even though its action is nol the wisest action, that Ih- central aulhorily should he very caiefnl about revising il — he believed that occasions did arise when it w.is not simply permiUed lo the central aulhorily, bul lliat il was the liound>'(l duty of the centra! autlionty to revise ]]roviiicial legi.-lalion, legislation lying dislinclly within the limits of the Provinci'S. He supposed on most siibjecU he would b^ rf^giird^d as ihinking with Ihe Liberal party, bill if the Lib'-ral paiiy hid even liiken ground in opposition to thai he must beg to be excus'H from following the Liberal pariy. He suppo.se 1 Ihnt was a bold thing for a man who was ntdtliei lawver nor politician to s.iy, bul was prepared lo lake ih* ground thai the .Fesnils' Kstalns Act wa•^ not within the limits of Ih" Province of Quebec. So I'dV as il dealt wiih eliicalion il was wlthii: those limits, so far as il d(!all willi money it was williin those limits, bul he thought he could show thai il was marked by features which look il out of Ihose limits, and making it a mailer thai Iti! Dominijn ought lo deal with." Sir JOIIX TIIOi[PSOX. (Antkk.nisu.) I feci that in addrossiiin' tho House upon thi.s question and in ])i'esontin<^ lo if. at this staii'c of the dehale, the reasons which, 1 believe, Jtistitied tho Crovornniont in advisiny Jlis Excellency not to e.xerci.si; th; power of di.sallowance as to tho Jesuits' Estate Act of Quebec, I must ask more than the usual iiulul<^encc of the House. J shall be compelled, in the tii'st place, to dwell at censideiablo length, on details which tho House has already heard discussed ; and 1 shall luive to speak under a senso of the fact th.at with one lartfc portion of the poo[)Ie of Canada nothing that 1 can say will bo satisfactory, and that with another, and 1 hope the greater portion of the people of Canada, no defence of tlie (xovernnient is necessary. .Vovertholoss, considering tho arraignment which the ])olicy of tho (ioverninent on this question lias had, considering the interest which the measure!^ has excited in all quarters of Canada, it is onl\- becoming that I should ask the indulgence of the House in order that I may make a plain stiilement of the reasons which have induced us to give to His Kxcclleiicy the advice for wliich we are to be held rosjionsiblo to-night. 1 desire, before beginning a statement of these reasons, to take exception to a remtirk wliich was made by the lion, member for Simcoe i.M. McCarthy), at the outset of hi^ address, with reierence to the position which members of the (rovernment occupy in this debate. The lion, gentleman, in complaining that no member on tho Tre;t- Hury benches had risen to take part in the debate down to this stage, sjioko of it almost as an act of decourtesy. He seemed to think' thai tho mode in which the discussion should be carried on w;is a mere matter of politenes.saad a more matter of fence. I do not so regard if. I understand the position of the (fovernment to be this : The case on liohalf ofthe amendemcnt was tirst presented forcibly and ably last night by tho hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. ()'nrien,),sustained by an hon. gentlemiin on the opposite sitlo of tho House (Mr. Barron); but \ lea\'o it to the sense of the House, whether, when the debate was adjourned at near midnight, any argument remnined uiuniswcred which called for an answer from tho Treasury benches, liut with regard to tho hon. member's comjilaint on tho ground of discoui- tosy. I liave to appeal lo the sense of fairness of the Jlouse in this particular. No member on either side of tho House w.as unawjire from tho commencement of \\n> debate, that the main argument on which tho conduct of the (Jovornment would be 87 <4 asHiiilod, would bo prosontod l)y tho lion, meinlici- fnv Siiiu;oo (Mr McCarthy ). T was Uio Minister, who. it' tlioro 1)0 ii ditterouco liclwoeii colloaguos as to tho oxtcnl to which ro.sponsilhilily is k g tw l, was ])riiuarily responsihlo, and I submit it to tho tionse of f'airnoss oVevory mombor, whether, helbro j^iviiif^ tho reasons upon which I must stand or fidl as regards tho con-ectness of the atlvico which 1 gave to His Excellency it -was not my ri«jjht ioJ/foav my accuser? Tho hon. gentleman thinks otherwise, and tho position he takes is this: That courtesy to him and to thegontle- mjfn who will divide with him on this question lo-night require that his arraign- ment of my report, his ai-raignmont of the (iovernment with regard to eveiy subject ?)t'thit» discussion, should have been made aftei" my mouth hail been closed, and L ceased to have a right to defend myself, if there is any fairness or courtesy in that position, I am willing to submit that 1 was wrong in reserving tho remarks which 1 have to make until the hon. member for Simcoe had boon heard. Xow. in present- ing Iho case which I have to present on behalf of the (iovornment, I must ask your attention for a few moments again to th • wearisome n;irration of tho position which these lands occupied in the Province of Quebec. >«ot that that matter has not been iliscuBsed in every detail, but because in almost every detail I have essentially different opinions from those of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and because, in some respects, tho points u]ion which the merits of this case de])end wore lost sight of by tho hon. member in the admirable address he mado this afternoon. Why, J venture to say, without tlu^ slightest disrespect for tho lion member for whose talents no one in this House has a higher resjicct than 1, and I would bo tho last perton to dispaiago any observations which ho might address to us — I ventiiro to say that tho reason why this House ought not to ask His Excellency now to ilissalloAv that Act, if we hail no better reason, is that the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) — a master of legal argument — addropsed tho House for nearly three houib this afternoon, and picsented a cate in which, for one whole hour, the hon. gentleman went from detail to detail, from stop to ste]). for the purpose of proving — what? lor the purpose of proving that tho .lesuits of Quebec lost their title to tho estates in question — a fact which is admitted in the jneamblo to tho Act^^Ho spent an hour more in discussing theological questions, and questions connected with tho ecclesiastical history of England, which, in England itself and in every ono of her colonies, have been kept asleep for the last two hundred years by the spirit of toleration on which alone a Jiritisli country can be governed. Xow, let me call tho attention of tho House to a bri> statement with rcganl to tho position of these estates, not for the purpose of showing that this society in the ProviMCo of (Quebec, whatever its charactor and merits may have been, had a le,f,'al title to the property, but for the parjiose of showing that this is not a (inosijon v.'hich wo can decide, but is one which must and ought to have been left to that authority ndiich the Constitu- tion makes not only competent to deal with such questions but omnipotent in dealing with them, subject only to control in so lar as the rights of the whole Domi- nion or the policy of tho Empire may bo involved. Now, Sir, the House will remember that, long before the cession of Canada to the Crown of Great Britain, the Jesuits had labored in the wilderness, and in the schools of Canada, and in the churches of Canada, and that, as a reward lor their missionary zeal, for their talent as teachers, and for their services to this, ono of the great colonies of France, that order had been ei'ected into an incorporated body, under tho most solemn acts which tho King of France vonUi pass under his hand, had been endowed with those estates by tho King of Franco, and by private donors, who wished lo place in their "hands Iho means by which tho work of Christianity and civili- sation amongst tho savages could bo carried on, and by which thework of education amongst tho youth of tho Province of Quebec could bo carried on. Those were the terms on which they hell tluir lands when the battle was fought o;i 1 he Plains of Abraham, and tho conqueror took possession of Canada under terms whii h aro in the tirst place set forth in tho capitulation of tho city of Quebec, and ^ ^,*-^C- ) 7$t^ ,1 aftonvanla in llio chfiitiilation oniio city of Monlreal. Jinii undor termH which nre phiinly tlofmod by the'+it.w of natiunfl, roco^^nized by ovoiy civilised counlry in tiie world' What wore theHo>©«HH? By Iho law of natioiiH, roc<>^'ni/,«d, an 1 have said, in every civiliKod country in tno^voHd, the conquorinf^ power took j>OHHe8Hion of all thori^lilH, privileges and property olHlH^conquerod monarch in the country, but he took no more. Jle took the hovoroifjntyoliiJlio country, ho took the King's forti- cations in the country, he took the King'H n^^ron of arms and ammunition in the country, he took the King's landH at tlie c<)Mitry, ho took the King'w treaHures in the country, but ho had no i-ight by thoViw of nations to lay his hands on tho property, movable or immovable, of the liutXblesl hubject in tho country. If ho hud dcHpoilml private ]iroperty it would havK been an outrage which would have disgraced theJiritish arms, and ho would havbycommittod an act, lot me tell the House, which, irrospectivo of tho law ol'natioii^^bcgun at (Quebec, repeated at Montreal, ho \'ould not do. It has boon said in thiBVlcbato that, by tho Terms of Capitulation, the Jesuits of tho Province of Quebec, and all their property, were placed at Iho mercy of the conqueror. 1 do not so read tho Terms of Capitulation. I jet me tee article 3-1 of the Terms oi' Cai)itulation of Montioal : " All Ihe <;onunuriilie9— " And at that time tho Jesuits were in community in the Province of Quebec " (iiiil (ill lliii I ricls shall iirt'sorvc lli'Mrinovahies, llii^ jiroiiorly umi roviiniii!s of llie siiif^norio-; ami utln'i' I'slaii's which llitjy insscs-; in \\w culuiiy, of wliul iiutiin' soovor ihi-y l)u, and tho saiin' otilales !>hull lio iiruvt'rvi.ul in Uk :!■ |irivilogi's, ri(,'hls, honors ami ovf^mjilion?," That was the ro(iuoHt made, and tho answer given to that request was nnequivocal — "'Gr.'mtod." And yot wo are told that these estates, which came Avitbin the exact words of that provision as to the soignori(>s and property, movable and immovable, of the priests and rclif,MOUH orders in tho Province of (^uoboc, were reserved to the King's mercy. It is friio that the preceding section S.3 was refused until the King's plo!" uve should bo known, and in that there was a distinct roferonce to tho Jesuits, but that art", do referred, not to tho property only of tho Jesuits, but asked in addition to the [.rovisi )ns as to their pi-oporty in section 34, that they should have all their constitutions and ])rivilegcs, that their monasteries should not be entered by troops, and tliat safegi ards should be given to thorn from militi-ry intrusion, and that they should preserve their rights to nominate to certain ciin.cios and missions as there- tofore. Those irivileges, vague and underined by the terms of the article, wero met by the words: "Kosorved until the Jving's pleasure bo known," although tho res- ponse to the article, dealing with the properties of these peoi)le, wastho unequivocal one — "tiranted." The conquoi-ing arms of England were used against tho soldiers of Prance, but not against individuals, either in Franco or in Canada. Now, wo go a step further, a id we road the Treaty of Peace. The war liad gone on, and tho treaty was not made until 1763, and let mo read to the House a pa.ssago from the treaty, because the Terms of Capitulation aio liable to bo qualitiod by the final and defini- tive treaty at the close of the war. This provision was made by the treaty : " Mis Most Chrislian Mnjosly ceiifs ami guarantees to His l?ritinnk' Majeslv m full riglil, (Canada with all lis (Icpiinifncifs, as well as the island of Cape Flreion, and all Ihij other islands and coasis in the (lulf and HIver Si. I.awroiice, and, in poneral, everyllnng that depends on the said countries, lands, islands, and coasis, willi the sovurei{;iil\ , |)rop(3rty, poss<'s Most Christian' Iving and the Crown of iM-ance have liail till now over lln' sai 1 countries, islands, lands, places, coasts, and iheir inhaliilanls, so thai llie Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whoh; to Ih" said l-Cing and to the Crown DfCreat Hrilairi, and that in tho niosl jimple manner and form, without restri(dion, and willioul any liberty to depart from the said cession and guaranty under any prelonce, or lo disturb Groat lirilaia in the possessions above mentioned," 89 Now, in roturn for thut oossion ol Canada und Cupe Biolon iind all the islandu ofllio St. Lttwrouco, ttiis solouin coiupacL was miuio by ilia JJriUinnic MajoHl^' : '• His IJnUiiuic Maj»'sty on his sidn ii«roe.s to t;ruiil lii ) liljorly of tiio Cdlholit; rolitjion to tho iiiliiiliiluiits (irCiiiiKla. Ml' will ci)iis(.'(|ueiiily giv(3 llio inosl jin'oiso fiinl most ■ ff'cluul orders ih.il his new INimaii ralfiolic suftjcfls iriiiy proffss llic \vorr-lii|) (if ihoir n'lifjinri, iicfiorfling to ilifl riU's oflho Homisli Churoli, ns farns Hir |,i\vs of (Inal Flrilairi piirmil. IlisBrilaimic MnjHSly iiirllier agn-es Ihiil Uki Froiich iiihahilarils, or olliors who liail fwn suhjinits ofllio Most Cliristiun king in (iaiiada, may retire willi all salcly ami Irwilom wlitTovur lliey shall think projmr, and may soil Ihuir cslalus, providod it he to suhjijcl? oi His Hriluiiiiic Mojesly." Tliib lIouHC Iius been told tbat (be ohsoiico ol" (be wbolc chiuHc i.s in Ibo (lualification, 'aafiir us (be laws of (Jrea( Bri(ain jionnit," and Avoaro told tlia( tba( of Ksolf introduced all tbo ijiw.s of Kiii^land rciatin^r lo ))iiblie wortibij), (bo Siiproniufy Act, and overy(bin<5 of tbat kind wliicli could be invoiced. Mr. MoCAIM'HY. Not by nic. Sir JOHN TJIOMI'SOX. Tbo bon. member for Simeoo did not assert tbat it introduced tbe Supremacy Act, bu( (lie argument \\nn made bol'oro be Hpoko in tli© ilobate, tbat tbai introduced all tbe restrictions on tbo exorcise of religion ; and wo wore J«ld tbat it even introduced tbe Supremacy Act, under wbicb, let mo tell tbo House plairdy, if it bad been intnxluccd in tbo Province of Qtu Ik;c, no man could have exercised tbo Oatbolic relii^ioii at all. Tbe very essence of tbe Supremacy Act is tbat no j)ei'son — 1 am st iip])inf^ tbo Act of all its vorbiagc, I am giving its essence, and at tbo same (imo quo(ing its exact words wbon 1 say. (bat (be gist of (be wbolo .\ci istbis: Tbat no jmr.son outside (be realm of Kngland sball liuvo or exorcise vvitbin (be Qui'en's dominions — ovon spiritual superiority. If no sjiiritual superiority in Kome tben no bisliop in (Canada; if no bisbop in Canada, no priest in Canada; if 110 i)rietit iii Canada tben no sacrament for tbo living or (be .lying in t'anada. J'A'ory altar in Canada would bavo been tbi'own down by (be very terms ol'a treaty in wbicb His lii'itannic Majesty, in return for (be cession ol' balf tbe continent, solemnly proini.setl not only tbat tbe people sbould bave tbo riglit (o exercise tboir icligion, as tbey bad been accustomed to do, but tbat bo would give tbe most ])i'eci.so orders ihat freedom of woi'sbip be carried out in every particular. Now, Sir, obviously tbe noaly meant no sucb tiling ; obviously His Hritannic Majesly did not take witb one liand (bo cession of (bis country, and bold out a false promise witb tbe otbcr. Ob- siously bo meant tbat tboio sbould be jiorfect iieedom of wor.^bip in Canada, tbe newly ceded country subject only to tbo legislation wbicb inigbt bo made upon tbis ."ubject from time to time by (ln! Parliament of (Jreat Britain, certainly not tbat it was subject tben to tbe laws as regards (reedom of worsbij) in 'ireat Jb-itain ; for, let mo remind tbo Jlouse, (bat instead oftbere being any freedom of worsbip in \ his jtroclamation in violation ol'tlic treaty wliicli lio liad nuide in 17t).'', and hy tho terms of tin? treaty ho had reserved all those rights which touch this ([uostion, oven ii\ tho remotest decree, 'rherofon;, it is idio for us to (Uhcuss how far ho mi^^ht have mado other Itranehes of tho common law applicable to this country. Tn tho year 1800 the last .lesuit died, and I think that by tho law of l'lnropertios, instead of revertin<; to tho Crown, passed to the ordinaries of the dioceses in which they were sitiuited. I do not moan to say thtit that is so: I ])rcf*ent that to the House as one of the (|uestion.s which has been raised, and which tends le make this case anythini;' but a plain one. I will do more. 1 will admit the lion, member for Simcoe's contention, that the common law had in the meantime been introduced, that the civil law bad been supt>r.sey the Crown (dlicers of (ireat Britain at the time, an o" ^4 .> Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ■I l/j \ 6^ "T 92 ;*'■'■ turo of thiit Province. Now, Sir, the result of the existence of that chvira — the result of the assertion of that moral right, whatever it may have been worth, was that, from year to year, when the Province went on to assert it** right to those estates, tind as the Province ventured to place piece after piece of the property on the market, it was met by a protest fiom the united hierarchy of Quebec, demand- ing that such properties should not be sold, should not bo diverted from the original charitable and religious purposes for which they were intended, and so everj'- stop by which those estates were sought to be made useful to the revenues of the Prov- ince was contested in the most formal and solemn manner. It is recited in part of the preamble of this ^ct, that not many years ago, one of the most valuable parts of the property, being situate opposite the Basilica in the city of Quebec, was brought to mai'ket, and there was mot by solemn protest of all the hierarchy of the Province. In face of that protest, casting as it did, a cloud upon the title of the Province, involving as it seemed to do a dispute as to the right of the Government, and as to the title of the purchaser, that property had to be withdrawn from sale. Let me assure this House again that in ])resonting our case I am endeavoring to do so, not from my individual point of view at all, but simply from the point of view in which we may be asked to withhold or to give advice with respect to the great power ©f disallowing a provincial statute. Lot me call attention then to all these details, and let me ask the House to keep in mind that state of affairs with respect to the property itself, with respect to the assertion of this claim, good or bad ; with respect to the assertion of this moral right, worth little or much, and to remember the difficulty of marketing the property in the Province of Quebec under these circumstances. If the House will bear all this in mind, and then will read with me the statute which we are asked to disallow, I say that the provisions of that statute will cease to be obnoxious to any reasonable man, that they cannot be misunderstood and that they can hardly bo misrepresented oven by the most A^iolent prejudice. The sale, as I have said, was forbidden. I am not driven at all to defend the policy of the Government of the Province, as to the propriety of opening up that question ; as to the propriety of not insisting that these properties should be sold even if they should be sacriliced in the face of that formidable protest. That v/as for the Legislature of Quebec to say. The constitution has charged me with no duties and with no responsibilities, as to the weight of any legal or of any moral claim which the Legislature has thought proper to recognize. I ma}' concur with gentlemen Avho have spoken this afternoon that it was unwise not lu insist on the strict statutory title based on confiscation, severe though it may have been, but in this case the constitution has not made me the judge. It has not made me or my colleagues the arbiters between the two sets of opinions in the Province of Quebec ; it has not clothed His Excellency with the power to step in and consider every question Avhich arises among the people of the Pj-ovince : it has vested that authority in the Provin- cial Legislature, which by a unanimous vote, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) last night declared that this was the true and proper solution of the question. Under those circumstances have I any light to exercise a superior and overruling judgment over the Province ? Is that the theory upon which, our constitution is to be worked out ? This moral claim, as they choose to call it, may have been as weak as air, but it was considered weighty by the conscience and the judgmen< of lho.^3 whom the constitution solemnly appointed to decide and after that it is not for us to say : " The Legislature arrived at a wrong conclusion." I can state the matter no more forcibly" h tn in the very words of one of our opponents on this question, Avho declares that the authority given to the Provincial Legislatures over certain classes of subjects carries with it, like all autho- rity, a liberty to error which must be respected so long as the legal power is not exceeded, and the error is not manifestly subversive legally or morally of the prin- ciples of the constitution or of the great objects of the 'state. As far, therefore, as We have to consider the power of the Legislature to recognize a moral obligatioix - 93 leaving out of eight for a moment tlio tlicologicu questions which my hon friend from Simcoc (Mi-. McCarthy! and I arc to join iHsuo on, with a view to tlio Houso passing judgment, as to wliich is the bettor tiieologian forsooth, and as to whoso iidvico on the question of theology His Excellency the Governor C.ioneral as tho supreme theologian is to act — [ contend tliat the Legislature iiad supremo authority to decide, and had a perfect right to decide, without veto or controlling authority iit Ottawa, even though we thought they decided erroMcously. Now, Sir, having asked. tiio House to bear in mind tlio situation in Avhich these properties stoocl in tho I'l-ovince of Quebec, tlio way in which an attempted sale was met by a protest; which completely frustrated the sale, let me call tho attention of tho House to another state of facts as regards the various claimants upon this property. There were the Bisiiops of the Province who said : " As a result of the suppression of tho Society of Jesus in tins Province we were vestad with all the estates as tho ordinaries nf tho v^arious dioceses in which these properties Atere situated." Nay, more, thoy said: " Wo have inherited their moral claim too, because when tho means Avero striken from their hands of carrying on the missionary Avork and the work of educa- tion, Avo took it up and, by tho sacrifice ol' our people's labors and treasures, avc built up institutions of education all over this country." Tho Society of the Jesuits had in tho meantime buen ro-instated and re-organized in tho Province, and upon this point let me call tho attention of the House to the argument of my lion, friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) Avhicii Avas tliat by the decree of suppression in Franco tho order became extinct in Canada. He cited to prove that tho decision of tho Parlia- ment of Paris, AA'hich merely decided that the .lesuits in Franco Avcro liable for tho debts of the Jesuits in Paraguay, because tlio properties of the tAA^o sets of men avcvo held in solidarity. That decision has not the remotest ettect upon the statute of tho Josiiits in Canada, Avho, themselves, Avero a body corpoi-ato under the most solemn instrument Avhich tho King of Franco could give them to indicate his Avil! in that j'egard. I have mentioned that tho bishops claimed that they represented the moral I'ight, Avhich. as 1 have said, the Legislature thought Avas Avorthy of compensation, and the Jesuits claimed it likcAvise. Look at this as a business matter. Look at this matter simjily as relating to a piece of land in the city of Quebec, and toll mo hoAv, under these circumstances, tho title Avas over to bo cleared of this dispute. Obviously not by compensatiMg first one party and then tho other, because under those circumstaiicos tho Legislature Avould have had to pay tAvico tho value of tho claim. It could be only settled by getting the tAvo parties to arbitrate and to leaA'o it to some person to settle their mutual dispute, or by saying : " You must conform to the decision of some ])orson Avho has authority over you both." Let mo argue this question throughout, if avo can, Avithout feeling that wo belong to different reli- gious persuasions, Avithout feeling that a religious question is mixed up Avith it at all ; and, therefore, let us leave out for the moment any name Avhich might excite the prejudices of some portions of the community. Tho Bishop of Quebec and the other contesting parties who struggled for compensation for this moral claim Avero all members oflhe same church, and by their membership recognized supreme autho- rity in the head of that church to settle their disputes, even though the settlement should be against their Avill. The head of their church hau that authority — not by any provision of tho laAv of Quebec mind, not by any provision recognized by English laAv mind, but by the consent of tho parties Avho Avere free to belong to that church and free to leave it, and Avhile they did lielong to it were subject to a spiritual supe- rior. He had that power by their choice ; ho had the right to say to one or tho other, no matter hoAV small or hoAV great the proportion might bothat Avas divided botAveon them : " You must submit ; it is a fivir settlement betAveon you, and I, as your supremo arbiter bind you by my decision." The (rovernmont of Quebec, therefore, having made up its mind to recognize the moral claim, if for no other purpose, for purposo.s of public policy, found that they could not arriA'o at a solution of tho question without some person to act betAveen tho claimants and to bind them both. It was only by a 94 n 'fi' method like that that tho}' conkl reach a solution — paying onco, and onco only, the value of this moral claim. Now, that l)oing no, let me see what was done in pursuance of that method of settlement. The head of that church, so possessed with power to preclude the Jesuits from making any further claim, so possessed with power to preclude the bishops from making any further claim, authorised, in 1834 — and this is an important fact, as the House will see when I proceed a little Avith tb') argument — authorised the Archbishop of Qiiehec to act as his attorney in the nego- tiations for the settlement. On the 7th of May, 1887, a document appears which has been one of the means of exciting hostility to this Act, On the 7th of May, 1887, the head of the church reserved to himself iho right to settle the question with regard to the value of that moral claim and the division of the proceeds — reserved it 10 himself in virtue of his prerogatives as a potentate ? Not at all. Eeserved it to himself simply in the Avithdrawal of the authority which ho had given to the Arch- bishop of Quebec, and loft himself unreprensented in the Province by any attorney whomsoever. And, tlierefore, when it is said that tiie Pope reserved to himself the right to settle the question, he was not by any means claiming to reserve any right in the public domain in the Province, or any right to the appropriation of money of the Pj'ovince. He Avas simply withdraAving the poAver Avhich he had given to another person to settle the question, and saying : " Until a neAv authority is given, you Avill negotiate Avith me." The next step, Sir, Avas on the 17th of May, Ic88, and that Avas in a letter Avhich was written by Mr. Mercior, the First Minister of Quebec, and Avhich, without an undue desire to defend the propriety of these negotiations, the policy of the Act, or any other step of the transaction, I think has been very much misunderstood in this discussion. That letter recites, among othei* things, that the Holy Father by reserving to himself the settlement of that question, virtually had cancelled the authority, the only authority, which existed in the Province of Quebec, to negotiate with the Governruent. The First Minister said : ' My pi3decessors in ihe Government deemed it their duty, in 1876, believe, to order the de- molition of the college and the division of the property into buildings lots, in view of an immediate sale, which, however, dii nol take place, owing to certain representations from exalted personages at the time. " To avoid further difliculties, as 1 supposed, my predecessors let the maiter lie and allowed the property to be so neglected that it has become a grazing ground and a receptacle for filth, so much so that it is openly said in Quebec that the matter has become a public scandal. " Under these circumstances, 1 deem .t my duty to ask Your Eminence if you see any serious objection to the Government's selling the property, pending a final settlement of the auostion ofth'i Jesuits' estates." My hon. friends so far misconceived that request as to represent it be a petition on the part of the Government of the Province to a foreign potentate for permission to sell the property— a permission which they did not need, because by the law of the Province they had the poAver to sell it, and they had from year to yetv sold portions of it, and put the proceeds in the public Treasury. But in asking his consent to the sale of the property, they Avere asking that, Avhen they brought it to the market again.they should not be met by the protests of Ihe bishops whom he had the poAver to control; and, therefore, Avhen the First Minister said : '' A\ ill you permit this property to be sold, pending a final settleineut of the Jesuits' estates ? "—he Avas simply asking that that protest should no longer be made, and that there should bo a consent to the sale on the part of all Avho asserted any claim Avhatever, even though it were only the shadoAv of a moral claim. He said : " This is a receptacle f r filth, so much so that it has become a public scandal ; let us all agree that it shall be sold, pending a settlement of the Jesuits' estates." Surely that is only the ordinary transaction of every day life, Avhen a man has possession of real estate to Avhich another sets up even an unfounded claim. He Avill say: " Eather than that this property should go to Avaste and be a public nuisance, better that Ave should all consent to sell it." Yet Ave are told that the First Minister Avent to the feet of a 95 foreign potentate to enable him to exorcise power wliich ho ought to havo found in the statutes of his own I*rovince. He was not denying his legal title or power; but ho was sinaply saying : "■ Give mo your consent so that thip claim, whether little or much, shall no longer stand in the way of a sale for the benefit of all concerned." lie said : " The Governm^nl would look on Ih^ prooeods oflho sale as a special deposit to be disposed of li^reafLer, in acnordance willi the agreements to be entf-red inio between the parties interested, with the sanction of the Holy See, " Simply this, that all parties claiming the property, or any rights in respect of it, shall agi-ee that the property shall be sold and the proceeds shall be kept inviolate, so that anybody having any ilaim against the property shall not be prejudiced, but shall have the same claim as before — precisely the same arrangement as any business man having property to sell would make A>^ith his adversary. The letter goes on to say: " As it will perhaps be necessary, upon thlt^ matter, lo consult the Legislature of our Province, which is lo be convened very shortly, I respectfully solicit an immediate reply. " We were told in sarcastic tones to-day that it was absolutely necessary to go to the feet of the Sovereign Pontilf, but it might only perhaps bo necessary to consult the Legislature of the Province of Quebec. I say when we know the facts with regard to that property, criticism becomes unfair. The Governement of the Province had already power to sell the estates by lav/, and therefore, unless it Avere agreed upon with the head of the church that the property should be sold under these conditions, and an agreement ware made to value this very claim, and to put aside the funds to meet it, there was no necessity to consult the Legislature at all. If the personage to whom that letter was addressed had declined the negotiations, it would not have been necessary to consult the Legislature, because the Provin- cial Government had all the legal authority the Legislature could give them. It Avas only in the event of a compromise being arrived at and the payment of money being involved, that it was necessary to consult the Legislature. And yet this letter has been put to the House, as if, forsooth, the fair and true meaning of it Avas that it was on\y perhaps necessary to consult the Legis- lature, but at all events it is necessary to consult the Holy See. Now, the answer to that letter Avas in these Avords : " I hasten to notify you that, having laid your request before the Holy Father at the auiience vesterday. His Holiness avus pleased to grant permission to sell the property which belongel to the Jesuits Fathers Defore they Avere suppressed, upon the express condition, however, that the sum to be received be deposited and left at the free disposal of the Holy See." The claimant representing this moral claim says : " I agree that you shall sell that lot in the city of Quebec, but if you sell it, place the fund to my credit in order that Ave may knoAV Avhere it is when Ave arrive at a satisfactory con-^lusioa as to Avhat shall be done Avith it." The ansAver of the First Minister Avas that he declined to accede to that, but he proposed a reasonable alternative, that the Government retain the proceeds untill this dispute should be settled. Thus Avhat is declared to be an assumption of authority on the part of the Pope, actually in contravention of the Supremacy Act, and Avhat Ave are told actually trails the Queen's honor in the dust, is that the Pope consents to the Quebec Government retaining the proceeds of the sale of tho Jesuits' estates, subject to a future settlement of the dispute. The Go- vernnaent of Quebec, pending the settlement of the claims of these tAvo litigants, Avhich Avere to be held in suspense to be settled, not before the sale of tho property but afterAvards, retained custody of this fund ; and Avhen the authority representing these rival claimants agrees to this proposition, it is asserted, forsooth, that because 96 11 '•If ho uso (lio word " allows " moaning cvidonlly "consents," ho liiis encroached on the proro,y;ativo of the Queen. In agreeing to Iho Government retaining the proceeds of llio sale of the Jesuits' cslatoH, ho acted simply as the arbiter botwcon the two contesting claimants, ilo allows this simply as the person who, as tho head of the church to which tho claimants belong, has, by (heir own choice, a right to give this consent ; and yet when ho consents to that, it is actually declared that ho is assert- ing tho prerogative of a foreign potentate in derogation of tho prerogative of the Queen. I repeat that when we know tho facts with i-egard to tho situation of tliis property, and witli regard to tho nosition of the two rival claimants, it is impossible to misunderstand, and almost impossible for ingenuity lo misrepresent, tho pream- ble of this Act, as unfortunately it has been misrepresenting during tho long discuss- ion which has taken place, since the Act was passed, in various parts of the country. Tho letter of Cardinal Siraeoni, of the 27th March 1888, contain this passage with regard to tho conclusion arrived at ; " Anirniatively in fivor of the FiUliers of tlie Society of .Jesus and in nccordarico \\[\,h Up melliod ])refCiit)Gd in oilier jilacos, that is to say, tlial tlio Falli rs of tli'.' Society of Jesus lival m their own name with tlie Civil Govi'i'nmenl, in such u manner, however, as to leave lull liljoily to tho Holy See lo dispose of the properly as it di-ems advisable, and consequontiy that lln'; should be vei-y careful ihat no condition or clause should he inserted in Iho ollicial deed of lli' concession of such proi)erty which could in any manner allecL the liberty of the Jloly Sec." As T have said, down to that (imo, tho power of tho attorney whicli enabled any ono to negotiate witii regard to this question had been withdrawn, and then there has simply a new authority given to a new attorney, namely, tho fathers of tho so- ciety, to treat Avith the Government of Quebec, and tho stipulation, not that the pi'o- porty of tho Province should bo subject to any conditions, but that if there should be a conveyance made of it to any partie.-: — to tho Jesuits on tho ono side or the hierar- chy on the other — iri settlement of the claim, those parties should not take a deed M'hich would preclude tho Pope from giving a final decision as to the way in which the proceeds should be devided between them. Then, in his Jotter dated 1st May, 1888, the First Minister of the Province of Quebec distinctly stipulates that he is not recognizing any civil or, as wo vrould call it, any legal obligation, but merely the inoral obligation in this respect. ILo says : " G That you will gianl to the rTOvernnicnt of the Province of Quebec a full, complele an. I perpetual concession of all the properly which may have belonged in Canada, under whatever title, to the leathers of the old society, and thai you will renounce lo all rights generally wlialsu- ever upon such properly and the revenues llieielrom in favor of our l^rovince, the whole, as wi'K as in the name of the old Order of Jesuits, anil of your present corporation as tho name of Uh' Pope, of the Sacred College of the Propaganda and of the lioman Catholic Church in general." Then follows the clause to which above al! others, exception is taken, and to which. I shall ask the special attention of the llouao : " 7. That any agreement made between you and the Governemont of the Province will be binding only in so far as it shall be ralilied by the Pope and the Legislature of this Province." '') i Now, when we look at the Ac*^^ itself, when we sco what the Government of Quebec asked the Legislature to do, when we see them ask the Legislature to vote, in ex- tinction of this moral claim, whatever it was worth, the sum of $400,000, we cease to be surprised and to be deceived as regards tho effect of that provision of the sta- tute. Tho Ministry of Quebec were dealing with two rival claimants — the hierarchy and the Jesuit Society. They are dealing also with a third party, the Pope, Avho accii- pied the positirn of mediator by consent between these two, and tho First Ministoi' of Quebec stipulated that before the Province should he asked to pay one dollar of the money, it should have a conveyance, in the first place, from tho fothers of the III 91 Bociety, in the second place from the Pope himself, and, in the third place, from the Sacred College of the propaganda and the Eoman Catholic Chinch in general. He stipulated that befo^o ho should be bound to pay a dollar of that money, nay, even before ho should aak the Legislature of Quebec to autorise him to pay a dollar, he should bo in a position to say : " I have obtained a complete release from all the parties who forever after can assert the slightest right or title or the slightest claim, legally or morally in regard to these estates." Why could ho not do this ? Could he have said : " I ask the Legislature of the I'rovince of Quebec for authority to pay this money on obtaining & conveyance from the fathers of the society ? " Would he not have left outstanding the rights of the hierarchy, who contested, every inch of the way, the rights of the fathers of the society to the proceeds of the settlement? Would he not have left outstanding still the possible claim of the authority superior to them all ? I assert it, without fear, that the contention will not commend itself to the good sense of the House, that that provision No 7, which is taken such great exception to, is a distinct provision against the authority of the Pope and not in favor of the authority of the Pope. In fact by that provision, the substance of the agreement was this : " While 1 am willing to offer to you 8400,000, T am not will- ing to be bound by my offer until your master ratifies your agreement to accept it. I will not only not pay you a dollar of that $400,000 until every one of you gives me your conveyance, but until the greatest superior you have on earth gives me his deed ; and until I get all that, I will not ask the Legislature of Quebec to give me authority to pay you a single dollar." And yet, because the Legislature of Quebec demanded, before it should put that money even at the disposition of the Governor in Council, that they should have everybody's rights foreclosed, and that the highest authority the claimants recognized on earth should give his deed also, and more, that the College of the Propaganda should also give its release, and that every step down to that point should be without prejudice to the rights of the Pro- vince of Quebec, we are told that this is an assertion of the prerogative of a foreign potentate. I am dealing with no merely legal theory upon this question. I am not devising any excuse for the legiplation of Quebec. I say that the Legislature of Que- bec so understood it. It was so explained to them. I hold before me a statement which the First Minister who introduced that liill into the Legislature made to that Legislature, and upon which they passed the Bill. He says : " In the first place wo must not mistake tha bearing of this declaration nor forget that it was inserted as a protection." The Legislature of Quebec passed it as a protection on the statement of their First Minister. They passed that provision unanimously as protection, and yet months after we are to put a different interpretation upon what their intention was, and to ask that His Excellency, a stranger to that Legislature, a stranger to their motives, should decide that that was not their true motive at all, that it was not a protection hut a distinct challenge of the supremacy of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Mr. Mercier said : " Any serious objecllon to it, however slight, may disappear, for it is we, the Ministers, who insisted on it, in order not to give eflect to the transaction, unless it was sanctioned by the reli- gious authority, in the person of the Pope. And it is easy to understand why. In all imi.ortant treaties made by mandatories (agents as we undei stand) ratification must be mode by the prin- cipal, t. c, the mandator. Thus, for example, ta Ice what concerns me personally, wliat concerns Ministers, — what is it usual to state in" resolutions and letters ?— that |the transaction will not avail unless saftctioned by the Legislature. Well, the Rev. Father Turgeon, who was charged by the Holy See to settle this question with us, is only an agent, a mandatory, an attorney. And 80 that there may be no misunderstanding, so that thn transaction may be final, so that the settlement may no longer be open to discussion by the religions authorities, we insist ihat the Pope shall ratify the arrangement. There is no question of having the law sanctioned by the Pope. Let us not play upon words. The law will bo sanctionned by the Lieutenant Governor, 1 fW 98 and it will take effect in the terms of the agreement. That is to say, Sir, that if the Pope does not ratify the arrangement there will bo neither interest nor principal paid, but wo shall" then say to the religious authorities ; " You appointed an agent to settle this question ; we came to an undev< standing, and if you do not ratify the act of your mandai'^ry it is your own fault, for we, the inhabitants of the F'rovince of Quebec, though the constituted authorities, have done our part, have kept our promise." I am pleased to believe that the importance of the precaution taken by us will be understood. But once mora, if there is any serious objection to that part (of the matter) it is very easy to come to an understanding. But in that case we must substitute something equivalent. What shall we put? We must, after all, put something to express that the transac- tion will not avail till the Pope ratifies it. Well, Sir, we said " the Pope " intentionally. We did not say th's Gongrf gallon of the Propaganda. We did not say the Secretary of Slate. We said the Pope. We desi re that the ratification be given by the head of the churth, in order that all those interested may be bound." When we know that that was the intention of the Le^ifllaturo of the Province, when we know it from the statutes, from the correspondence, and from all that we know of the facts rof^arding these estates, and when we know it also from the declaration of the First Minister of the Province in which the Act wj^s passed — an explanation which was accepted by hoth sidos of the House, for be it remembered, as the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) said last night, the Act was afterwards passed unanimously, and the First Minister was not asked, after his explanation, to substitute anything for that provision — we ar now actually ask to advise His Excell- ency that all this had a different and an occult mean:ng, and that the Legislature of Quebec did not mean what the First Minister of that Province said it did in passing this Act. Then, in the letter of the 1st May, 1888, he goes on to say : " That the amount of the compensation fixol shall remain in the possession of the Govern, ment of the Province as a special deposit until the Pope has rallUed thesaid settlement, and made known his wishes respecting the distribution of such amount in this country." Before I leave this stage of the transaction, I repeat that this was distinct legislation iigainst any possible rights or claims on the part of the Pope, and that any Protes- tant Legislature in this country — I say more — the Pa^Hiament of the United King- dom, if it had been called upon to pass a statute offsoting property in regard to whicn there were foreign claimants, high or low, would have passed provision to that effect, and achivieving the result. I aduit that the words which give offence to per- sons of various other persuations throughout Canada and make distinct reference to the Pope, might not have appeared in the preamble to an Act of the United King- dom I admit that it would have been in better tarste, in view of the great difference of opinion which exists in this comitry on matters of that kind, if that language had not appeared in the Act, and if the same result had been obtained, as the Frst Min- ister of Quebec says it might have been, in a different way ; but theresuft, whatever may be the form of words used, is a proper result, guarding all the rights of the Pro- viiice until eveiyone else had given up his claim. And, when it comes to a questi«n of disallowance, we are here to advise disallowance ©r allowance, not upon the fbrra of words, not mpon the question of the drafts man's taste, but according to what we believe was the true meaning and intent of the Act itself. Now, let mo again before I leave the subject of the Act, call the attention of the House to ihe fact that all the argument which has been made v. ith regard to the necessity for disallowance is based «n objections to the preamble of the Act. In the history of disallowance in this country, in the history of disallowance of oar own statutes in the mother country— and we know that scores of them were disalFowed — the records will be eeaiKihed in vain to find on which was disallowed because tlie preamble was not agreeable t© anybody. I do not pretend to dispute the statement of my hon. friend from Musko- ka, ( Mr. O'Brien ) that the prealTl^b^e is a part ©f the Act. So it is title a part of th« Act, and so are the head-notes of sectiofiB ; bat Ims anyone ever heard of a Govern- ment being ask to disallow an Act because they did aot like the w;ording of the title or of the head notes ? The preamble is understood to be a part of the Act. for the 99 does not n say lo 1 under- we, the ur part, aken by ) mailer) imelhing transac- ly. We to. Wo pder that e, when e know ilaration lanation ihe hon. tei-wards ition, to 8 Excoll- lature of passing e Govern- and made jgislation { Protes- ed King- to whicn to thfit |ce to per- srence to |ed King- ifference aage had 'rat Min- hatever ifthePro- questisn Ithe fbrm what we ,in before at all the seis bofiCil e in this lountry — I'ched in ■eeable t« _ Mu8ltduty of every Legislature in tho Provinces of Canada, would be to declare that we have in this 19th century tho rights of freemen and tJie rights of religious 104 '„'; ! ( ! ; V.i a Tindor tho British North America Act to have a constitution similar in form to that which our fellow subjects in the United Kingdom enjoy. Let me see how far the Provinces, from time to time, ;in the exercise of their right of self-government conferred upon them, have insisted on that policy, and have insisted upon that right with the full recognition of the Imperial authorities, for let it be remembered that before ISe? our statutes had to go home and be revised by the Office under the advice of the Crown officers. Why, Sir, in the year 1 850 tho Roman Catholic bishops in the Province of Upper Canada were incorporated, and their successors from time to time canonically appointed. " Their successors." our friend from Simcoe will tell us, " oh, yes, but not successors recognising any authority from a foreign superior." Eead the statute, and I will give up the argument if it does not say: '• In communion with the Church of Rome." Therefore, in 1850, the Legislature of Upper Canada incorporated those bishops and gave them corporate powers, on the one condition which, according to the hon. member for Simcoe, it is unconstitutional we should allow in this country at all, namely, that they should be in communion with the See of Rome. In 1854, Sir, the same thing was done for all the bishops fjr all time to come in Lower Canada; and an Act for the division of the parishes of that Province for the purposes of public worship, under the supervision of those bishops, was authorized by the Province. In 1862 all tho bishops of the Province of New Brunswick for all time to come were incorporated. You can look at the statutes of every Parliament in British America, and you will find precisely the same legislation ; and tho main of those corporate powers is that those who are to exercise them shall be bishops in communion with the Church of Rome. We have heard to-night, and we heard last night, about the laches of the people, who we are told, were not to be procluded, not having objected to the Jesuit's Incorporation Act of 1887, from objecting to it now. Perhaps not. We were told that a great evil had been done, that a great class of public sinners in the country had been given powers of incorporation in 1887, ar.d that it wivi not too lat-3 to rise in indignant protest. We were told that a people does not lose its right to object to provisions which are repugnant to an English statute of 300 years ago, which they contend and we deny, has any force, or ought to have any force, in this country, in regard to people of other religious beliefs at any rate It is perhaps not too late. But they are not only a year behind the time ; they are 37 years behind the time, because 37 years ago the Parliament of Canada incorporated a body of those Jesuits, for the actuel purpose of teaching what the hon. member for North "^amcoe calls their wicked tenets, in the Province of Quebec. In 1852, Sir, St. Mary's College, in the city of Montreal, *o be taught b}' Jesuits, and the corporators of which were Jesuits, was incorporated by tho Legislature of Canada; and in turning to the division list on that Act, as one of my hon. colleagues did last night, he showed me that 29 Protestants and 27 Catholics voted for it,and only 7 voted against it altogether in that whole Legislature. We had, dir, 37 years ago religious toleration which would have frowned down the argument which was presented to tills Houeo this afternoon, if it had been clothed in ten times the ability and force with which we saw it paraded before the House to day. Then, in 1868, a college for the same purpose at Sault au RecoUet, in the Province of Quebec, was incorporated ; and I ask members on both sides of this question, whether, down to a few weeks ago we have ever heard any remonstrance againts the powers which were conferred on those bodies, or whether any section of the people of this country, or any one, high or low, of one denomination or another — and I speak of those who have been appealing to public opinion on this question from the pulpits with the 105 d, and for the people aeir right I'm to that m far the ►vernment that rieht bered that under the 1 Catholic successors lend from ty from a ea not say: ishops and ) the hon. try at all, 4, Sir, the nada; and I of public Province. 30 me were America, corporate mion with about the e: objected rhaps not. I era in the 3 not too ) its right Shears ago, force, in perhaps 37 years ed a body for North st. Maiy's irators of n turning night, he against religious jsented to ind force a college bee, was down to )rs which I country, hose who with the profoundest respect — has ever objected to the teachings of those institutions, or uttered any reproach with regard to their conduct in this country, with regard to their loyalty, or with regard to the effects of their indtruction or example on the youth of this country. Again addressing myself to the argument that it is not necessary for us in British North America to be more restrictive as regards the rights and powers of the Crown than the Crown has been in England, let me call the attention of the House to the fact that 80 years ago, in the heart of England, a magnificent institution of learning was placed under the control of this same order, in which thay have been carrying on, every year since, the education of hundreds of English youths, and that that institution at Stoneyhurst has had added to it other like institutions all over England. Ai'e we to say that the Act in Greac Britain, or that the prohibitory legislation with regard to the Jesuit Order, which is not to be applied in Great Britain, must be applied to one section of the people in Biitish North America, and applied under our federal system by the arbitraiy power of disallowance with which His Excellency is entrusted ? I might well reiterate, but I will not do further than i*efer to the eloquent and forcible ai'gument which you, Sir (Mr, Colby), addressed to the House last night, in which yon pointed out that we had lived to too late an age for any section of the people of this country to be willing to live under a government by which that kind of legislation would be applied. In the exercise of the immense powers, limited though the range of subjects may be, which are given to the Provincial Lijislatures, there is no Provincial Legislature in Canada, which, legislating upon the subject of the civil and religious liberties of its people, would consent to have its powers curtailed by the Federal Government taking from the wall a rusty weapon which had hung idly there for 200 years. I will spare the patience of the House and not do what I intended to do, namely, quote legislation still in force with regard to all Her Majesty's domain, but a dead letter foi- scores of years — legislation which, if it were in force would put one-third of tho people of this city into prison to morrow, for the offence of heresy, the offence of non conformity, the offence of not taking the sacrament, or for daring to profess the belief of Unitarians, some of these statutes being still actually unrepealed. But what is the use? The greatest writer on the subject of criminal law which the century has produced. Sir Fitzjames Stephens, has put tiie story well in two paragraphs, and his authority upon it will not be denied ; the acceptability of his sentiments with regard to the United Kingdom will not be questioned ; and he says this : " For 200 years Government has been carried on—" And he is speaking of government in the United Kingdom— —'♦without prejudice to ditTerences of opinon which in previous limes were regarded as altogether fundamental." For the last 200 years in England, I venture to say, government could not have been carried on if it had not been by practically ignoring legislation which previously was levelled at differences of opinion which were considered altogether fundamental. At that time a man who did not conform to the religion of his neighbors and the religion of the law was put out of the pale of the law altogether and treated as a public criminal. A great body of that legislation has never been repealed to this day ; a great body of it is just as much in force in the Dominion of Canada against our freedom of opinion, against our freedom of worships, as the statutes which have been invoked yesterday and to-day; and yet when we read this lesson that for 200 years it has only been possible to carry on government in England by ignoring those differences of opinion which used to be aimed at by the criminal law and were considered as fundamental, we are, in this country, to look still at the 106 old fundamental differences and curtail our liberties by the strong arm of the federal authority; and, in the exercise of federal power, we arc to curtail the rights of oar Legislatures to infringe upon, impugn, or make any enactment repugnant to this leginlation which has been Duried under the weight of public opinion for upward of two centuries. Well, I forgot to say, and I will digress from my argument to mention it, that, in 1871, by a statute of the Province of Quebec, there was an Act pas-sd incorporating the whole Society of Jesus in the Province. The order was precisely the same society which was incorporated by the Act of 188*7, and the f nly diflFerence is the difference of legislative provisions as to the method of working their incoi'poration. From 1871 to 1887, no word of objection was raised in any part of the country to that incorporation, as to its constitutionality or efi'ect, but because in 1889 wo did not advise disallowance of an Act of precisely the same kind, we are to rtill under the censure of this House. I have referred to the stateinont of Sir Fitzjames Stephens as to the value of this legislation to England, and I will cite another passage which, for its terseness and its force, is worthy the attention of hon. gentlemen. Ho says, referring to I he legislation agains*^ the Jesuits in the year of George IV : " These powers, I believe have been considered, ever since ihey were passed, as an absolutely dead letter." M •M Before I close my argument, I must address myself for a moment to a view which was put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) aa regard the effect of the statute on the fund for higher education in the Province of Quebec. He put forward as a reason why this Act should be disallowed, if no other reason existed, that it was a breach of trust, and that it misapplied, or, to use his ow n words, misap- propriated the property which it related to. I think the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Langelier) was quite right in challenging him to read any part of the Act which sustained his argument, and the House observed that he did not respo* d to the challenge. Let me remind the House at the outset that, in regard m the sale of the property, the statute gives the Province no greater power than it had before. It is a statute as its title implies, for the settlement of the Jesuit claims. But tlie Province of Q'lobec, before that, had, under its existing legis- lation, ample power of sale, and the Act malces no provision different from that which did exist as to what is to be done with the property or the money. One Avould suppose, listening to the argument of the hon. member for Sim- coe (Mr. McCarthy"* although ho did not state it in so many words, there was a provision in the Act which declared that that trust should no longer apply to the property, that it might go into the consolidated revenue and be disposed of as the (iovernment pleased. Not so. The last clause of the Act provides that when these properties are sold, they are to be subject to the disposition of the Legislature. Are we to infer and to advise disallowance on the ground of that inference, that the Legislature of the Province is going to betray its trust with regard to any property, when it has never made that declaration or never sought power to desert the trust ? I will tell the House what is the absolute fact on this point : That the minority in the Province of Quebec, that those interested in higher education, that those interested in any way in the execution of the trust, have not suffered one whit or jot by the passage of the Act. The fact has been that the revenue from those estates has been paid from year to year into the consolidated revenue fund and not into the fund for higher education. The fact is likewise that the proceeds of large portions of that property which have already been sold have, from year to year, been placed to the cicdit of the consolidated ovenue, and spent for the general purpose of the Province. Fiom year to year, tl Provincial Legislature, not out of the revenues of the Jesuits' estates or the pn oeds of the Jesuits' estates, which were too small for that purpose, but out of its consolidated revenue, has made ample provision for 107 tbo highor education of the Province ; and after the ai-gument made this aftei-noon about vhe way in which the minority would be prejudiced, and the supineness ot'tho minority in submitting, as it was said they would be willing to submit, to thin legislation, and the breach of trust, which was apparent on the Act itself, in the division of the only fund that exists for the higher education of the Province, the House will be surprised to learn that from year to year I speak in general terms — the allowance in the Province of Quebec for the hij;her education made out of the consolidated revenue fund has been, on an average, more than three times the annual proceeds of the Jesuits' estates. Not a single school, high or low, in the Province of Quebec, has been sustained fi-om those estates so far, because the fund was utterly insuflBcient. Ample provision was made out of the consolidated revenue fund, and yet we are told that when these estates disappear and go into the market, they go free from any trust, and that neither the majority nor the minority will have any security for higher education in the Province. It is sufficient for me to have shown the House that the Act purports to do nothing of the kind, that it sanctions nothing of the kind ; but I think the argument has irresistible force when I show that those properties have not been considered a security for these purposes at all. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) challenged the pro- priety of my report upon this Act, v/hen, after favoring th« House with his long and interesting theological discourse, ;ind after having excited to some extent the feel- ings and sympathy of the House, he declared that I had presented that statute ta His Excellency as of no more impoT-tp.nce than the eleven othera accompanying it, which I had recommended should bo left to their operation. Now, upon the impor- tance or unimportance of the statutes it is not necessaiy for me to advise His Excel- lency, but I take the responsibility of having advised His Excellency that that Act was no less within the powers of the Legislature of Quebec than the other eleven which accompanied it. And when I have reminded the hon. gentleman that it is not a question of trust, that there is no diversion of trust by the authority of that Act, and that these estates have not been the source from which higher education has been supported, I think he will be almost inclined to agree with me that I was right after all in saying this was a fiscal matter within the control of the Province. But this is not the first time, ctlthough it is the first time this excitement has been raised with regard to it, that this society, who have been spoken of so severely in this debate, have been dealt with by the Province of Quebec. I have in my posses- sion a list extending back over fifteen years of appropriations in the Supply Bills made by the Legislature of Quebec to support the higher education carried on by this society within that Province, and, according to the statement we have heard this afternoon, all that has been unconstitutional, and every one of these Supply Bills ought to have been disallowed, because, forsooth, they were ignoring the dis- tinction between Church and Stat a. I think it is rater late to treat this question as anything other than a fiscal question, and that the diflference between the Supply Bills in all those fifteen years, and the Act which is now being discussed is simply a iiuestion of degree and of amount. The principle of supporting the higher educa- tion carried on by that society in that Province has been recognized, as I have said, every year in the Supply Bill, and, yet, for the first time, because this is a larger sum which is being dealt with, and lai-ger because it deals with the rights or claims of that society to lands, wo are asked to assert a principle which we were never asked before to assert in regard to them. Now, I desire to call the attention of the House for a moment to two other branches of the argument which were presen .^ed to it this afternoon. We were told that there was a restriction in the Act as regards the expenditure of the $60,000, but that there was no restriction as regards the expenditure of the $400,000. The 860,000 has been appropriated to a body which had no claim, legally or morally, and had never asserted any as regards the title to the Jesuits' estates. They have claimed to be interested in the ai^propriations which are made from time to time for higher education, and rightly so, and those n !( 108 cluims have always been considered. I am not prepared to say, whether the propo '- tion allotted to them in this Act is right or not. That is a question upon which th ^ hon. member] for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), if he had a seat in the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, might have adressed the House with great force, but for us here to discuss the appropriation of money, and the proportions in which it is appropriated by a Province would be as absurd as for us to take the Supply Bill of tno Province every year, and enter into a discussion of its different appropriations. The reason why, as I presume, the restriction has been imposed in rogai'd to the $60,000, and not in regai-d to the $400,000, is that the $60,000 is voted for educa- tional purposes purely and simply, and, while the $400,000 has every prospect of being so applied, because it is voted to a body whose business it is to teach, still it is paid to them in 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 which I must advert, that the grant of money to^this corjjoration was a church endowment which violated the principles of the separation of Church and State in this country. I pass by at this moment the position which any church occupies in this country. I do not intend to discuss how far, in any portion of the country, any church may be consi- dered as now established ; but I do say that it passes the power of ingenuity to show that the grant of money to a corporation of teachers and preachers is the endow- ment of a church in Canada. It is true that a church may be in part a society of pi-eachers and teachers, but this society is not a church, and in the most illogical way in which a fallacy could be put on paper, this resolution asks the House to como to the conclusion that, because a society incorporated under a statute of the Province and employed in preaching and teaching the tenets of a certain religion receives a grant of money, that is the endowment of a church 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 my 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 er an asylum which was under the care of a religious organisation. "We all cherish the principle that there should be no Church control over the State in any part of this country, but my hon. friend proposes something worse than that control. He proposes that we shall step into the domain of a Provincial Legislature, and shall say that no Provincial Legislature shall have the power to vote any money to any institution if it partakes of a religious character. It may profess any other kind of principle. It may profess any objectionable principle, and it is lawful to endow it, but, if it professes the Christian character, it is, forsooth, unconstitutional to allow such an Act to go into operation. I listened to the remarks which the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) addressed to the House on the third branch of his argument, as to the objectionable teachings of this society with some surprise, though I do not intend to-night to challenge his ample liberty to differ from me as to the correctness and propriety of those observations. I hoped that, in this discus- sion, he and those who will vote with him arill not prove themselves any less friends of religious liberty then they have professed to be in the past, but I assume — I think I have a right to assume — that, when the case of the gentlemen who are opposed to the allowance of this Act is placed in the hands of an hon. member who is so able and BO skilled in argument as he, we are not to be condemned for not asking His Excel- lency to disallow this Act, unless the reasons which he urged with such great force this afternoon are reasons which I could use in addressing His Excellency 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 De condemned unless I could avail myself of his reasons in asking His Excellency to disallow the Act. K I could picture myself 109 going to His Excellency and asking for the disallowance of this Act, for the reasons which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) presented in the latter part of his address, I would imagine myself just fit to be expelled from His Excellency's presence as quickly as possible. What would be the reasons which I should urge ? I am not finding fault now with the strictures that the hon. gentleman made in regard to the society, but, forsooth, I am to go to His Excellency and ask him to disallow this Act because, in the year 1874, a Quarterly Review published an article denouncing the Jesuit Society and its teachings. Am I not right in taking the argument and the evidence which he produces to-day as the argument and the evidence which I should produce to His Excellency ? Ifl wore logo to His Excellency and say that the Quarterly Review^ published in 1874, denounced in language as strong as could be the tenets and teachings of these people, His Excellency might ask me a number of perplexing questions, one of which was levelled at the hon. member for North Simcoe this afternoon without much profit to him. Let me suppose that His Excel- lency asked me : " Mr. Minister of Justice, who is the author ? " My answer would have to be — surely I cannot do better than iake the answer of the hon. member for Simcoe — my answer would have to bo: " ' really do not know who is the author; but,your Excellency, I am sure that nothing would bo published in the Review which would not stand criticism." I am afraid that His Excellency might not be satisfied with that answer, and that he might put me another rather more puzzling question : " Mr. Minister of Justice, are you aware that these able and eloquent, but anony- mous, publications in that Review have been refuted time and again until the sland- ers have been worn threadbare ? " I would ask my hon. friend from Simcoe what I should answer to that question ? Me. McCarthy. Eefuted where ? Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I would like to ask him, has he ever read the answers to them ? I would like to ask him, has he ever sought the answers to them ? Because these are questions which His Excellency may ask 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 precise, and not to be suspected of evading the question, I will teH him that in an English publication called the Month, step by step, as every one of these articles came out, the answer and the refutation came out, and that in the opinion of a great many people, those men were able to refute the artiele.i trium- phantly. I am not to pass judgment as to whether they wore successful or oth« - wise, I have no right to speak my own opinions here, 1 am speaking for those witli whom I am acting in concert. His Excellency might ask me whether havin? read these articles what conclusion I had come to as to the balance of arguments jiro and con. If he did so, I should be unable to find, in the course of that admirable three hours interesting theological discussion which we had to-day, a single hint as to my reply, and having read the attack in the Review, and the replies which were made, answer as I have done. I should have to tell His Excellency that unless he were to be guided by the opinion of a partisan on one side or the other, the best thing he oould do would be to leavo it either to his own conscience or to that conscience which the Constitution has provided for dealing with the subject —the conscience of the Legislature of the Province which had to deal with it. If His Excellency were to ask me : " Sir, in advising disallowance on the authority of the Quarterly Review" — which I am afraid to the Colonial Office would not be a sound authority, would not be a satisfactory constitutional authority— " have you verified the quotations for ydurself ? " I ask the hon. member for Simcoe what I should answer then ? What answer could he give to the House if I asked him now, whether he has verified a single one of those quotations— and I tell him that on the verity of the quotations half the controversy has turned. I tell him that it is claimed by those who have I 110 iiDilcrtakon — I do not nay they have succeeded — to refute them, that the tenets which ihoy are accuRO of teaohinc:, tliey have not taught; that the passages put forwai-d as proof's weio problems — doubtful cases, cases to distinguish between that which is the sin, wiiich the confessor has to deal with, and that which, though against public morals or public propriety, the confessor has rot to deal with. In dealing with casuistry, and when dealing with moral theology, some of the old writers quoted have suggested difficulties, and problems, and questions, and have given advice to confessors upon such subjects ; but they have not put forward the tenets as to be taught to the youth of the country. I might be told by His Excellency that I might find in the studies of ray own profession a similar case; that I might find the leading writers in my own profession, eminent men, stating that things which we recognixe from day to day as hideous wrongs, are not offences against the cr minal law of the country — some of them I could name, but which it would bo almost indecent to name in a mixed assembly. And, Sir, could it be said of these writers who declared that such was the law, that these things, however abominable they may be, however con- trary to public morals, arc not against the law — could it be said that these eminent writers like Sir Fitzjames Stephens and others are teaching that such things are law- ful and ought to be done in the country, and are putting them before the youlh of the country as things that are right ? Is there not a broad distinction between the two ideas ? If the hon. member for North Simcoe had read the answers which have been made to the publications, which ho quoted he would not have dared, as he is an honorable man, to have presented to the House the argument that he made this after- noon, without, at least, presented the other side of it. If I were to advise His Excel lency to dishallow this Bill because of the objectionable teachings of this body. His Excellency might fairly say to me: '■ The Legislature of the united Provinces of Canada, 37 years ago, erected the society into a co"X)oration tc hold lands and to teach the youth of tlie country. Now, in looking over that 37 years of record, cau you point me to on( of the teachers or one of the taught who has bee.i disloyal to his country ? Has anyone been able to say : '■ This er that father has taught me immo- rality, this or that man is guilty of immorality in his teaching, this or that tenet wae objectionable ? " What reply should I have to give him ? Well, Sir, if His Excel- lency went on and reminded me that the rulet< and constitutions of that order have been published for 45 years, and that before giving him advice of that kind I ought to be able to put my hand upon the passages of the rules and constitutions of that order which are objectionable on the grounds of public policy, I am afraid I should be unable to do so to an extent to justify the disallowance of this Act, and 1 am afraid I should not find in the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe much comfort inrthat respect. If I were to advise His Excellency to disallow the Act on thegrouud of the expulsion of the Huguenots, the Eevocation of the Edict of Nantes, the Franco- German war, the expulsion from France ia 1818, the expulsion from other countries, I am afraid His Excellency might tell me that all the statements of fact were dis- put.ed,and that ho might read me a lesson in ancient and modern history of which one of oio deductions could be that in some of these countries, to say that the court was opposed to the Protestant reformer, was no discredit to either the Protestant reformers or to the Jesuits. I do not think, Sir, that I need dwell on that bra ch of the subject any longer. I think that whenever we touch these delicate and difficult questions which are in any way connected with the sentiments of religion, or of lace, or of education, there are two principles which it is absolutely ncces- fiflry to maintain, for the sake of the living together of the different mem- bers of tliis Confederation, for the sake of the preservation of the federal power, for the sake of the good^will, and kindly charity of all our people towards each other and for the siiko of the prospects of making a nation, as we can only do by living in harmony and ignoring those difJerenoes which usewover con- 30 eminent igs are law- '"OUoh of the len the two » have been as he is an e this aficr- His Excel- J body, E,[s rovinces of nd to teach •d, cau you yal to his me immo- t tenet wae His Excel- )rder have nd I ought onB of that id I should ;, and 1 am )h comfort the ground he Franco- countries, were dis- which one court was rotes tant bra .ch of id difficult eligion, or ily ncces- mt mem- al power, ards each 1 only do sonsideicd leoiogical orarda the 111 control which the federal pow.'r can exercise over Provincial Legislatures in matter touching the freedom of its people, the religion of its people, the appropriations of its people or the sentiments of its people, no section of this country, whether it be the great Province of Quebec or the humblest and smallest Province of this country, can be governed on the fashion of 300 years ago. Mb. McNeill. (Brucb N. Eidinq.) I am very reluctant to prolong this debate, but I feel that it would not be right if I did not say a word in explanation of the vote which I shall give. I repeat that I do not wish to prolong this debate, and have but a very few words to saj*^, and in what I do say I hope I shall endeavor to say not one word that can add bitteraess to the debate. We ai*e here diflTering in race and differing in religion. We cannot see eye to eye in all things ; we must differ and differ widely in our views upon Hiany subjeoto : that is inevitable. But if we mean to make this country, this Canada of oara, a great and prosperous nation wo must first- endeavor as far as in us lies to bear and forbear with one another and endeavor to act together as an united people. And, therefore, it was that I listened with a great deal of grati- fication to the speech of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) last night when he assured us of the kindly consideration with which our Eoman Cotholio friends, in the Province of Quebec, treated our Protestant friends there. I believe that speech going abroad in this country will do an immense amount of good. I believe it will remove a great many misconceptions, I believe it will cause a warner feeling ot friendship to exist between our Protestant friends and our Eoman Catholic friends iiiroughout this Dominion, and that, I think, will be a matter of incalculable benefit to this Dominion. We have no quarrel witn our Eoman Catholic friends, and, therefore, I was, I must say, surprised at the extraordinary statement made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Eykert) last night when he said that those mem- bers who were discharging in this House a very onerous and painful duty desired to prevent their Eoman Catholic fellow-countrymen exercising thoir religion in this country, and in point of iact that they almost desired to drive them out of the land. That statement was not altogether what I would have expected from say hon^ friend, and I think it was a statement hardly worthy of him. Mr. EYKEET. I made no such statement, you cannot show it. M)'. McNEILL. I am glad to find from what the hon. gentleman sa/s that I misconceived him. I listened with a great deal of attention and I understood that was what he said, but I am only too glad to learn that that is not what Le iniended to say. Mr. EYKEET. I did not say it. Mr. McNEILL. If the opposition on our part to the endowment of the Jesuit Oder be of any such character, if it be an attack upon the Eoman Catholic faith and an attack upop our Eoman Catholic friends in any shape and form, as I cer- tainly think my hon. friend will admit he said it was, I would suppose that oppo- sition to the incorporation of that body would be equally an attack upon the Eoman Catholic religion and upon our Eoman Catholic friends. But if that be the case, what are we to say of the conduct of His Eminence Cai-dinal Taschereau and the six bishops and archbishops of the Province of Quebec, who joined with him only the ♦ther day so to speak, in 1887, in petitiening the Legislature against the incor- poration of this body. They, surely, are aot to be looked upon as enemies of the Roman Catholic leligion ; they, surely, are aot to be looked upon as persons outside of the pale of the Church and as persons who desired to prevent the Eoman Gathoho 112 people of this country from the due exercise of their rightfl and privileges. But wo find that Cardinal Taachereau and six bishops and archbishops of the Eoman Ca- tholic Church did petition the Legislature of Quebec not to incorporate the Jesuit Older. If that be the case, and it is a fact which cannot bo gain-said, I think these statements which have been made with respect to the course of my hon. friends who have felt it necessary t^^ support the amendment, these accusations of intolerance against them, because they object to the further strengthening of the power of that body in this counlrj', are somewhat far fetched. I do think that when the Minister of Jubtice, in the very able, the magnificent speech which he has just addressed to the House was dealing with this question, it would have been a little more seemly had he refrained from the statements in which he indulged in the latter part of his speech, and in which he seemed to ass' t that those who objected to the endowment of the Jesuit Order desired to have recourse to the prosecutions of the middle ages. The argument which my hon. friend the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), addressed with regard to the propriety of disallowing this Act, I do not speak of the ' legal argument, but I refer to the arguments which he presented in reference to the effect which the endowment of this body inflicted on the Dominion, and which were not founded on a reference to an article in the Quarterly Review, but included the statement that this was a society which had been found by almost every civilised state to be incompatible with the proper government of the country in which it existed — I think that this ai'gument is one which should be met seriously, and not merely by the assertion or the implication that in every case in which those govern- ments, Eoman Catholic as well as Protestant, had found it necessary to suppress this society, the society was right and the government was wrong. I think the argument requires to be met more seriously. Now, Sir, the agitation and the excitement which has arisen in the Province of Ontario in reference to this matter is very natural. The people of Ontario have begun to feel in that Province of late years the ever increasing power of Jesuit pressure and influence. We have begun to experience in that Province some effects of the unceasing aggression which history shows to be one of the leading characteristics of those trained spiritual warriors of which we have heard so much during this debate. I give them all credit for their ability, I give 1^ em all credit for their many deeds of seif sacrifice and heroism and for their learning and culture, but I beg to say that the Dominion of Canada is a Protestant country, and I think that while we give to all and desire to give to all who differ from us, the fullest rights and liberty for the exercise of their religious opinions, we have a right to remember that the Protestant majority in this country have some few rights and privileges also. I think that wo have a right to expect that if the Jesuit Order find an asylum here in Canada which has been denied to them in many Catholic States, they should have at least some consideration for the religious sentiments of those who have extended this kindness towards them. But, Sir, I wish to ask what has been our experience in reference to this matter in the Province of Ontario. You cannot deal with this as a purely local question, for it is not a local question. The Jesuit Order is not confined to the Province of Quebec and because you endow the headquarters of the order there that does not make it a local matter. You cannot limit the operations of this order to the Province of Quebec, there is nothing local about it. What has been our experience in the Pro- vince of Ontario, which is not the Province of Quebec. What has been the conduct of this order of Jesuits in that Province? We have every reason to believe that they have not scrupuled in that Province to attack our Protestant institutions and to dictate as to the education of our Protestant children. Only a few years ago we were startled to learn that a work which is one of the best known, one of the most generally admired, and one of the most beautiful compositions in the English language, a work, too, by an author who is preeminent for the purity and morality of his writings — had been, as we believe at least, at their instance, struck from the curriculum of our high schools. Only so recently as the year 1886 we find that the 113 3. But we Roman Ca- the Jesuit :hink these riends who intolerance ivor of that 10 Minister Idressed to )ro seemly part of his mdowment liddle ages. McCarthy), peak of the ence to the «rhich were eluded the y civilised I which it y, and not >se govern- ppress this > argument excitement ter is very late years begun to ch history varriors of it for their jroism and i/anada is a ;ive to all r religious is country to expect denied to ion for the em. But, ter in the for it is of Quebec make it a ovince of n the Pro- le conduct lieve that itions and vs ago we the most English morality : from the d that the same influence was at work in our common public schools and that an attempt was being made and HuccessfuUy made to banish from those schools that which is the very sign and symbol of the Protestant faith, the Protestant bible ; and to substitute for the book itself a collection of attenuated and mutilated extracts fromit. We find, in fact, that an astute and subtle attack was being made against the very character of that book and that an attempt was being made to poison the minds of our children agai nst it, and to represent it as a book unfitted to be placed in their hands. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my Eoman Catholic friends in this House and in this country, to place themselves in our position and to aak themselves whether they would not have resented such an attempt to interfere with the educational system in the Province of Quebec, and whether they would not have resented such an insidious attack upon their own religion ? I would ask them to put themselves in the place of the Pro- testants of Ontario, and to tell me if they would not have viewed with alarm any action on the part of the state which was calculated to strengthen the hands of a society which they believed had been in this way interfering with the education of their ehildere and endeavoring to subvert their religious faith. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the House longer. I will only say that I intend to record my vote in favor of the resolution of the on. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), and I will do so not so much as an expronsion of censure upon the conduct of the Government whose general policy I support with so much pleasure and whose conduct in reference to this particular matter has been circumscribed by conditions of such deep importance to the Dominion; but rather because I disapprove altoge- ther of the kind of legislation which we have had under our consideration. I believe it to be improper and dangerous legislation. I believe, in the Srst place — and as this debate has proceeded my opinion in that regard has been strengthened — ^that there has been a deliberate setting aside, with pomp and parade, of the principle that His Holiness the Pope of Eome should not interfere in our affairs of state. I think this is dangerous legislation for another reason. I think that in these days of party Government no more dangerous precedent could very irell be laid down than that a political party should be enabled — it may be for purely party reasons — to endow a religious body with large sums of public money. It seems to me that if we admit such a principle as that, we open a door which it will be ditficult to close ; and it seems to me that the dangers against which the Act of Mortmain was levelled were insignificant as compared with the dangers which may be incurred if we admit such a principle as that — the principle that a political party shall be permitted at any moment that it pleases to endeavor to secure the assistance of a religious body by ©onferring upon it large sums of public money. I say that is a dangerous principle, and that is a principle which is involved in the lejrislation we are discussing. I shall support this resolution also as a solemn protest by a humble member of this House against consolidating the power in this Dominion of a society which, however able and however devoted its members may be, is yet a society which throughout all Christendom has proved to be unscrupulous and aggressive, a fomentor of discord, and a stirrer up of strife, and which I am afraid, from what we have ah-eady experienced in the Province of Ontario, is prepared to pursue here in Canada those self-same tactics which rendered necessary its suppres- sion in almost every European state. MR MILLS (Bothwell). I have watched with attention the proceedings in this debate, not with more atten- tioa to what has been said by hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the debate then to the manner in whick it has so far been conducted. Since 1 have had a seat in Parliament, I do not remember any subject which has come before the House that has exhibited the tactical skill of the hon. the First Minister to greater advan- tage than this discussion. The hon. gentleman finds himself face to face with what m^ 114 may become a dangoronn agitation, involving the Administration of which ho is the head. That agitation vras begun by a journal conducted with more than ordinary ability, and characterised by what may bo called a spirit of aggressive Protestan- tism ; and it has gradually drawn to its side a lai-ge portion of the press of this country, and a very great deal of discussion adverse* to the conduct of the Grovora- mont has taken place in public meetings at several places in tho Province of Onta- rio. Well, tho hon. gentleman, in order to meet the dangers of tho position, seems to have divided his forces that ho may bo in a position to control both sides. Ho has appointed his lieutenants — tho hon. the Minister of Justice to leiul one section of the hon. gentleman's forces, and tho hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to load another section of those forces. So the hon. gentleman has made such arran- gements as to bring back to tho support of the Government any that might bo incli- ned to go astray. If they are dissatisfied with the conduct of tho First Minister, they are at all events not dissatisfied with the position taken by his ardent and faitliful supporter, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). Now, the businoss of each of these two distinguished lip"t,enants is to look cai-ofully after his own division of tho grand Conservative arm>, tid I have no doubt that these two hon. gentlemen have, in the estimation of thei. friends, discharged the duties assi- gned to them by their choif with a groat deal of ability and a great deal of skill ; and I am sure that tho hon. gentleman must fool equally grateful to his colleaguo, tho Minister of Justice, and to his supporter, tho hon. member for North Simcoe. This is not the only feature of this discussion worthy of notice. There is tho hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), who moves this resolution, and makes a very ardent and somewhat unreasonable Protestant speech, and there is another hon. gen- tleman, who, so far as I know since I have been in Parliament, has never been found voting against the Administration, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Kykert). who is put up to answer the other ardent su;^)porter of the Government, the hon. member for Muskoka. Then, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr McCarthy), speaking after these hon. gentlemen, and after the hon. the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Colby), tells the House that ho will not take the trouble to answer tho argu- ments which were addressed to the House by tho hou. member for Lincoln (Mr. Rykert). Ho tells us that that hon.member does not fear his constituents.because he never expects to return to them, that bo is soon to go to his reward, that he has in this House no abiding-place, that his labors as a supporter of the Administration, in this House, are drawing to a close, and that every day he is pitching his tent a day's march nearer the place where he expects to be. The hon. gentleman expects, according to the information afforded to the House by the hon. member for North Simcoe, soon to be gathered, not to his fathers, but to the fathers, where scrap books will be no longer required, and where all anxiety, as to the future of an elec- tion, will be dispensed with. That is the position presented to the House by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in regard to the lion, member for Lin- coln. Then the hon. member for North Simcoe told us of i-he position of another supporter oftheGovernment,the Deputy Speaker of this House (Mr.Colby). He told us that the roseate speach of the Deputy Speaker, in i-?ward to the perfect harmony existing between tho two sections of the population in the Province of Quebec, was due to thankfulness either for favors received or for those which were to come. Tho hon. member said the Deputy Speaker was expectant of future promotion, but the hon. gentleman did not wish to hear from a Minister in futuro, but from one who was actually in possession of the Treasury benches. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. He did hear it. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). In fact, tho hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) gives a representation of the Deputy Speaker which reminds mo of a statement, in Lord Beaconfleld's " Endymion." In describing one of tho characters iu lift I ho in tho ordinary ?rotostaa- 58 of this Govora- of Onta- , soomH to Ho has 3ction of LcCarthy) ich arran- t bo incli- Minister, jont and !^ow, the after his hoao two itiou atisi- of skill; oolleaguo, Simcoo. tho hon. 98 a very hon. gen- jver boon . Kykort). tho hon. icCarthy), ' Speaker iho argu- Lincoln b8,b0causo at he has listration, lis tent a expects, North e scrap )f an elec- the hon. for Lin- another e told U9 harmony ebec, was mo. Tho but tho one who coo (Mr. me of a L'actera iu that book, the author says ho had a fooling in his bosom which ho was not very suro whether it was gratitude or indigestion ; and ho tho hon. mombor for North Siracoe says that tho able speech mado by tho Deputy Speaker was the outcome of some motive, either of favor already rocoived or of liivor to bo received from tho Govern- ment, but he was not very suro which. Now, the hon. momber for North Simcoo, while he described tho motivo.s which actuated those with whom ho is associated on that side, and tho fooling which induced them to speak in support of tho position of tho Government, failed to give us any information as to tho motives by which ho was actuated himself. I do not say that tho hon. gentleman was looking forward to a seat upon tho Treasury benchos. I do not know that such a position would havo any attractions for hira. It is quite possible that it might not havo ; but I remember very well the support which that hon. gentleman has given the Government in past Sessions. I remember that Railway Commission Bill which was introduced and supported by one who stooc' so near tho Prime Minister, year by year, by which tho Grand Trunk was paralysed and tho IntorostH of the Canadian Pacific Railway wore promoted, and I cannot bring myself to believe that tho hon. gentleman would have taken the position ho has in support of tho amendment of the hon. member for Muskoka iMr. O'Brien) if ho thought tho Government had any serious o^'^jection to tho amendment. Th» hon. gentleman not only failed to give us any inform^.tion with regi»vd to his own motives of action, but he failed to mi' ke any allusion to the speech of an hon. gentleman who supported the amendment — the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace.) Now, that hon. gentleman 4ias been in this House a very ardent supporter of the Administration. How is it that tho hon. gentleman on thin question arrays himself, along with the hon. momber for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) and tho hon. momber for North Simcoo (Mr. McCarthy), :" >pposition to the course that tho Government has seen proper to pursue upon this ii-. ? Sir, rumor has gone abroad that the hon. gentleman is not without aspirations tor a seat upon the Treasury benches ; rumor has gone abroad that a round lobin has been sent along the back benches, on that side ot this House, in the hon. gentleman's interests, asking tho Government to find a place for him upon the Treasury benches. It is said that the scarlet robe of tho Minister of Customs has become somewhat faded by his long sitting upon the Treasury benches, and that he is no longer a fitting representative of a very large section of tho Protestant population of the Province of Ontario; and so it is proposed — at all events, such in tho rumor — to recuperate that section of the Government by adding the hon. mem- ber for West York (Mr. Wallace). Well, Sir, the hon. member for West York is opposing the Administration of which so many of his friends desiro that ho should become a member. The hon. member shakes his head. I havo no doubt that he is sincere in that shake. I do not think the hon. gentleman foels that he is opposing tho Administration ; I do not think he feels that by giving the vote he intends to give in support of the motion of the hon. member for Muskoka, he is doing any detriment to tho Government of which he wishes to becomo an important momber. Tho hon. gentleman, no doubt, feels that, as it is said all roads lead to Rome, so all lines of action upon this motion, on that side of the House, will lead towards tho Treasury benches, because they are alike intended to protect and strengthen the right hon. gentleman and those associated with hiru in the Government of this country. I think tho hon. member for West York is quite right, and 'perhaps quite consistent, in his support of the Administration by supporting tho motion of the hon. member for Muskoka rather than the motion of the Minister of Finance. Wo havo had tho two sides of the Government presented on this question. The hon. member for North Simcoo talked of the two sides of the shield, and i never saw an instance in which there were two sides to a political shield more manifest ; and, I may say, more admirably presented, than they have been on this occasion. Although we may admire the hon. Minister of Justice for the very able speech he mado en one side, and tho hon. member for North Simcoo, for the very ardent speech ho ^m 116 niado on the other, I think wo must after all give credit to the Hkill and gonorulHhip of iho Von Moltko who loadu tho Guvoi'urnout. and wliu loudH thiu Hoiiao. This, Mr. S|)««kor, is a uort of introduction to tho now plan of campaign Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Tho preamble is not part of tho Bill. Mr. MILTjS— which the Govornmont have prononted. The introduction is not without in torobt. Of course when, in a novel i)lay, tho actor is introduced to an iiudionco, it is always interouting to thocte who uudoi-btund it, and who uro looking on, and who are anxious to SCO how it will und. Sir, tho Minister of Justice last : night tnado a very exhaustive speech in doloiico of the action of the Govorn- inent, a speech in almost every word of which I cordially concur. When the hon. , gontlemnu had completed that speech the hon. Premier was ready for adivision. IIo ,did not see any necessity for any furth,.r discussion upon the subject. It had bewn fully and exhaustively discuHsca. Both sides of the Government shield had been . presented to the House. The Government had made their defence belbra the country, and they say to the electors: You can follow tho Minister of Justice and support the Government, or you can take tho other side, and follow the hon. member for North Simcoe, and support the Government ; and so, whichever way the matter may be urtanged, it comes to supporting tho Governmont after all. It is like tho trade between the hunter and tho Indian. It is : 3'ou take the owl and I will take tho turkey ; or, I will take the turkey and you take the owl. It goes to tho Govern- ment, no matter what the choice may bo. Well, Sir, tho Prime Minister was no . doubt ready for a division, but wo wore nOw, and is it to be wondei-ed at ? I expect, at all even ts, and no doubt the vast majoritjy on this sido of the House expect, to support the Governmont. But when one is in qucstiouabl ; company he always feels obliged to make some defence or explanation of his condujt; and I feel it necossary, in view of the political character of the gentlemen with whom I am to be associated in tliis vote, to give some account and some justification to tho public for the course I intend to pursue. Now, we, on this side of the House, feel that this is a very important question. It is one which is calculated to arouse religious feeling, and religious prejudice ; it is one in respect of which men, iftheyonco become permeated with it, are likely to throw reason to the winds; and, therefore, in this incipient stage — if the incipient stage of tlie excitement and controversy is not passed— it is important that tho Opposition, as well as the members and supporters of the Govern- aient, eliould have an opportunity of assigning to the public what is a sufficient reason for their own justihcation, and which I think will be regarded as a sufficient reason by the great mass of those who support them, for the course which they intend to adopt on this occasion. We have liad most of the speaking so far done on one side. Our business in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, is to stand up for tho right, to allay, so far as wo can. the popular excitement, to correct the popular misappro- hension as to tho nature of the question put in issue by this Bill — not to become mere weathercocks which will indicate the strength of the gale which may be blow- ■''ng from this or that particular direction. I have, and I have no doubt that every mtleman on this side of the House has too much respect for the good sense and -iie good intentions of the people to undertake to convert this Jesuits' Estates Bill linto a sort of *' Ginx's Baby " for tho purpose of creating religious excitement and (for arousing religious animosities throughout the country. So, for these reasons, we (propose fully to discusss this question, and I think the time occupied in such a .discussion is not wasted. There is one advantage amongst the many disadvantages of popular excitement, that under it people are more likely to listen, with attention to what is said, and you have an opportunity of imparting to them information upon a subject which thoy would not be likely to receive under other circumstances. That being the case, I think we aie justified, notwithstanding our anxiety to bring this Session to a close, in taking whatever time may be necessary, to enter fully f ■■ ■ ti in into tho discussion of this siibjo^t, arad to givo to th(> p^oplo who sont, in linro alt tho information noccHsnry to enable thiom to fo;m an iiuii-^Ui^ont conolii»ion on tho merits of tho question in issue. Sir, this is a most important question. Tho motion that has been placed in youi* hands by the hon, mombor for MusUoka (Mr. D'Hrion) is, in ROino rosnocts, one of tho most important that lias over boon bi-ouglit bofovo Pai'iiamont. Wo have in this motion, in tho namo of toloration, a d(5mand tbv intoloranco, and wo have, nndor tho pretext of resisting encroachments upon consti- tuted authority and tho maintaininpf of tho Supremacy of the Crown, a motion askin;* for a violation of tho Constitution. This motion is, in my opinion ladon witli mischief, because it mingles religions prejudices and religious animosities with tho considera- tion of tho question. It mingles np stories of wrongs done and wrongs endured, as narrated in history, with fables and romances, I did not know whon I hoard tho speech osnecialiy the latter portion of tho spooch of the hon. member for North Simcoo (Mr. McCarthy) and tho speech of the hon. mombor for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), whether they had derived their information from history or romance. T thonirht that tho hon. gentleman who jr.^vM the amendment had studied tho "Wander- ing Jow" more carefully than anything else, and that in all probability tho political portion of his speech was derived from " Henry Esmond." In a country whore you have 2,000,000 of Roman Catholics, and something loss than 3,000,000 of Protestants, it is in the last degree mischievous to invade tho political arena with religious discussions, and to endeavor to convert Parliament itself into an ecclesiastical coun- cil for the purpo.se of deciding what religious opinions ought to bo encouraged, and what religious opinions ought to bo suppressed. Wo must ".ontinue to bo one people, or at all events a people of one country, and it is not dosirablo to make the people of Canada, like tho Jews and Samaritans, tho two sections of which woula have no dealing with each other. There may bo questions involving principles so vital to human progress, that the evils arising from undertaking to cvado tho question, tlu; ovils arising from acquiescence, would bo greater than thoso which would flow froui converting tho country into two hostile camps ; but it seems to me, Mr, Speaker, that this is not one of thoso occasions. In this case no such disagrcablo choice is forced upon us. Wo have in this motion simply tho question of tho right of local solf-govoramont on the one side, and tho assertion of a moddlosomo intorforence^ and oversight on the other. We have in this motion a proposition to sot aside tho judg- ment of a Province upon a question within its own jurisdiction, and to replace that judgment with that of a m.-ijority of tho people, or a section of tho people, in another Province. I do not think wo can permit any such course to bo adopted. If wo were to do so, it would be practically an end to the system of federal government. The hon. member for Muskoka and tho hon. member for North Simcoe have quoted histoiy upon this question. But tho history or tiio controversial papers written by men of strong polemical tendencies, the more they are studied the more tho readers are likely to oe led astray, and especially is history misleading when it relates to a remote period and when the surrounding circumstances and tho environing influen- ces of our own day are altogether different from that of the ago about which thev were writing. The past never i-opeats itself The hon. gentlehian assumes thpt, it does ; his speech was based on that assumption. I say tho present is always being taken up into tho past in tho form of permanent results and the future will differ from the present by all the influences that are to bo found in the events of tho age immcdiatoly preceding Were it not so you might take a thousand years out of the history of a people, without any change in its subsequent history. The thousand years before and a thousand years afterwards would fit together, for the intervening period would be of no account. That is not the course of historical events, and when an non. gentleman undertakes to tell us what this and that party believed or did 100 years or 500 years ago, without taking into consideration the circumstances under which thoso doctrines were laid down, or those principles enunciated or undertaken to bo applied, he is giving information which is calculated to mislead rather than to p f 118 ^■!|i I enlighten the people of the present day. I have no doubt that this question also is dangerous to public tranquility, from the consideration that it is a religious question. Men always feel they can go a long way when they think they are supporting their religious dogmas, or the religious dogmas of somebody else, and they will employ in the defence and in the promotion of those views, and those religious opinions and preferences, means which they would altogether set aside in the affaii'S of civil life, la order to consider with protit some of the legal and constitutional features of this question, and some of the legislation to which the hon. member for North Simcoo (Mr. McCarthy) has referred, we have to take into account the limits of government in former periods. "We must remember we have largely circumscribed the field of government. There was an ago when the Government undertook to control the whole domain of human action, when private domestic relations, the religious and political affairs, were all brought under the control of Government, and when the affairs of life, whether private or public, were regulated by the united authority of Church and State. Sir, in ord'^r to fully underatand the legislation to which the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) referred, we must remember that in the rise of the Teutonic kingdoms on the ruins of the Eoman Empire, provincial churches were superseded by national churches, ecclesiastical persons were included in the government, and while men came there with spears and shields, there came also bishops and leading men of the church, and they sat in council together, and legislated together, and dealt with ecclesiastical and religious, as well as with civil matters ; and so the legislation in a large degree covered everything relating to questions of religion and conscience, as well as to political affairs. Under the cir- cumstances it was as much an act of wrong-doing and as much a violation of the law of the land to dissent from the rites and the polity, the doctrine and the disci- pline, establishec' y the laws relating to the church, as it was to disregard matters , of civil authority. And so every case of dissent was regarded as a case of sedition. ,Men and churches, whether they were Protestants or whether they were Roman Catholics, under those circumstances, were intolerant. It was a necessary condition of the state of society then; they could not well be otherwise. If a man sought to set up a separate church establishment, it was as much against the law as if he had undertaken to set up a separate political tribunal, or a separate judicial institution ; and bo, as I have said already, the domain of government was extended over almost the entire field of political and religious opinion and action. This was the condition of things during the Tudor period in England, and it was the condition of things, in a large degree, though not to so great an extent, in the period of the Stuarts. Now, let me call the attention of hon. gen- tlemen on the opposite side, v/ho have dealt with the Jef^uits question to some facts of history — and I am not going to say anything in defence of this order, I am not going to enter upon any such discussion, but I wish to call the attention of the hon. gentlemen to the past, and I would like to ask them, would they be willing that their rights should be governed, and their action controlled and circumscribed, by the intolerant acts of the church or of a religious society of that day, with which they are now connected. Take the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and in her reign there were upwards of 200 Eoman Catholics executed for sedition of treason. The charges against them were political charges. I am speaking now of those who were jjut upon trial, and the records of whose trials exist, and we find that fifteen wei-e executed for denying the Queen's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, that one hundred and twenty-six of those were executed for undertaking to exercise priestly functions, and that eleven were put to death for the pretended plot of Eheims. Every one of those parties were tried, as Sydney Smith pomte out, for a political offence ; buu what was the political offence ? There was the established church ; the Queen's advisers had stated what the doctrines and discipline of that church ought to be, and those men, by remainin- members of another communion, set the law in regard to that esta- blishment at defiance. Put they were not the only ones who acted in this way. 119 >Q also 13 I question. ;ing their employ in aiona and civil life. )8 of thia h Simcoo vernment 9 field of •ntrol the ;iou9 and when the ihovity of (vhich the V that in jrovincial e included ere came ther, and vith civil ilating to f the cir- on of the the disci- i matters ' sedition. ley were necessary se. If a as much tribunal, iomain of religious )eriod in so great ion. gen- ime facts '. am not the hon. ling that ibed, by th which gn there charges vero put executed Ired and ions, and of those t was the [sets had 09Q men, hat esta- lis way. Wo find that the Nonconformists, Joan of Kent, and Potorson, and Tuinvort and othera, were executed on precisely the same principle, for holding opinions diflferent from Elizabeth and her advisers. If hon. gentlemen will refer to some of the histo- ries of that period they find these parties are spoken of as conspiring againts the Government, and as parties guilty of treason ; both Nonconformists and Eoman Catholics. But what was that offence ? It was that they declined to accept the rites and discipline of the establishment that had been created by law. Carabien, in his Annals, mentions that, in his day, there wore fifty gentlemen imprisoned in the Castle of York, the most of whom died of vermin, famine, hunger, thirst, dirt, damp, fever, whipping, and broken hearts, and that the only offence of those victims was, that they dissented from the religion of the Statute-book, and that of Her Majesty's spiritual advisers. Now, hon. gentlemen would not like to have the iutolei-ance of that age quoted as a reason why they should not now bo granted the rights of ordi- nary citizens. They would not like to have the religion of that pei-iod, and its enfor- cement by those who were of the same religious persuasion as they are, quoted as an evidence of their intolerance. It was the necessary outcome to the age in which those people lived, for when you undertake to extend the authority of government over the religious and ecclesiastical, as well as over the civil affairs of life, when you insist upon conformity to the one, as well as the other, it was a necessary conse- quence, that those who dissented in their views from the establishment, should be in a very unconfortable position. Now, one of those who was executed at that period for opposition, was the Jesuit Campion, and he, at his trial, said, that his only offence against the Government was that he had been guilty of holding a faith different from that held by the State. We would, no doubt, be ignoring history altogether if we did not see that many members of the Jesuit Order took an active part in the restoration of the Stuarts, and why was that ? Because the Stuarts favored their religion, and the Stuarts would establish it. The universal opinion was that some religion or other must be established, and they did what was perfectly natural for anybody to do — they sought to establish their own religion. When James II became an avowed Eoman Catholic, and when he was using his sovereign position for the purpose of the restoration of the Eoman Catholic faith and for overturning that of the groat majority of the nation, there were protestants who were then as active as ever the Jesuits wore in endeavoring to bring in King William and in affecting a change of Government, giving to the country a parlia- mentary sovereignty instead of one based on the nation of Divine Eight. So yoa find the Jesuits wore in treaty again on the death of Quoen Anno, or to the closing years of her life, to bring back the Pretender, because the dynasty was at an end, a new family was to bo established on the throne, and the question was as to whether it was to be the Pretender or some member of the House of Hanover. If you take the history of the Stuart periode in Scotland, and if you consider the relations of Mary, Queen of Scots with Knox, or of James VI with Knox, you will see that that great Eeformer's opinion of duty of the sovereign and of the connection between the Church and State are wholly different to anything what we entertain to day. No Presbyterian to-day would care to have his political views measured by the poli- tical standard of John Knox. He knows that society has undergone great changes, and that what was regarded as right and proper at that period would be a wholly improper thing to-day. Toleration is of later growth ; toleration grew as the state authority was contracted. Thex*© is no place where we hear so little with regard to religious interference in the affairs of state as in the republic beside us. Why is that ? It is because the Government is extremely limited, and because every subject of th ■ sort is excluded from, the domain of political authority. So, to-day, we have a far greater amount of religious toleration, we have a more tolerant spirit abroad amongst every religious community, than existed in the former period, simply because we more fully appreciate the importanc3 of confining the sphere of Govern- ment operation within narrower limits than did our forefathers. Now let us look pwwpr 120 ^ ,;e. 1 at some of the political views of that question. I regard it as extremely dangerous to our contitutional system. The hon. gentleman has put forward, as the first branch of this amendment, i\ proposition which I do not see how any hon. gentle- man who favors a Federal Government can uphold. He says that this House regards the power of disallowing the Acts of Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, vasted in His Excellency in Council, as a prerogative essential of the national existence of the Dominion. Why, Sir, the United States has a national existence ; it as lived for the past 113 years, and the President has no power of disallowing a Slate law, or in any way interfering with the authority of a State Legislature. Every measure is left to its operation. If it is ultra vires, the courts, and the courts only, can say so. But the hon. gentleman asks this House to declare that the whole machine of Government in Canada would go to pieces unless the Government exercised this veto. But, Sir, there is no doubt whatever that it would be a gross abuse of the trust committed to them by our Constitution if they were to exercise it on the pre- sent occasion. Our constitutional system is similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. What is the meaning of that ? The IJnited Kingdom has no federal organidation. Why, Sir, these words refer to the relation between the Exe- cutive and ihe Legislature. Our Constitution is similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, in giving us responsible government; it gives us a Cabinet con- trolled by a majority of the House ; and it gives us a House subject to an appeal to the country at any moment that the Crown thinks necessary. There is a certain sphere of exclusive action assigned to the Local Legislature, and a certain sphere assigned to this Parliament. Let us suppose that a Local Legislature, within its own sphere, had certain important question coming before it ; suppose this question were one ; suppose Mr. Mercier had said the Jesuits have a moral claim upon the Jesuits' estates, and that he had been beaten in the Local Legislature ; that he had gone to the country on the question, and that a majority had been returned with him to the Legislature to carry out that particular measure ; how long would your system of parliamentary government endure, if the Government here should, after that mea- sure was carried, take sides with minority and disallow it ? Sir, the Local Govern ment have a right to go to the covmtry upon a public question, if the country is the proper tribunal to decide whether they are right or wiong, it is perfectly clear that it cannot be the constitutional rule that this House is the proper tribunal to decide. How long could parliamentary government '^ndure if the Administration here were to exorcise that species of supervision over Uio Legislatures upon whom responsible Government has been conferred. If we should act the part of ancient Downing street, and undertake to decide what is wise or unwise, why. Sir, your Government would be at an end. Kyou have local self-government conferred upon the people of the different Provinces, it is clear that the electors of those Province:?, within their constitutional authoi'ity, are the ultimate court of appeal for the purpose of deciding whether the political course of their Government is what it should be. They are the proper parties, and they alone. It is not to the hon. gentleman on the Treasury benches, but it is to the electors that the Local Legislatures are responsible for their acts within constitutional limits; and while they keep themselves within those con- stitutional limits, I hold that we have not, according to the spirit of ourCouHtitution, a whit more right to interfere— to use this prerogative for the purpose of disallow- ing their acts— than we would have to interfere with the acts of the Legislature of the State of New York. They are a distinct political entity for all the purposes for which exclusive power is given to them ; they are constitutionally beyond the con- trol of this Government and this Parliament; if they have acted wisely, their own electors will sustain them; if, in the judgment of the electors, they have acted unwi- sely, they will condemn them, and will send to Parliament representatives who will repeal the law. By the judgment of their own masters they must stand or fall. But, Sir, it was hinted by the hon. member for North Simcoe, that these people were not fit to be trusted fully, and, therefore, this meddlesome oversight is necessary. If 121 lere were you take that position, your whole syetom of government is at an end. That sys- lem is hased on the theory that the people of each Province are fit to be trusted, that they are competent, and that if the Government do -wrong, the people will set them right. 1 see statements in the press and elsewhere, that this Government ought to exercise this power given to the Government here, by which they may act absolutely and upon the theory that they never err, that the Local Legislatuies are not to be trusted, and that this power is to be frequently exercised, in order to keep them right ? What would we say in this House, if the Imperial Government were to intei-fere on any question wholly within the purview of our authority ? \rould we submit to that interference ? You would have the whole country aroused ; you would have it declared, that we would not submit to the meddlesome interference of Downing street; you would have the old question about parliamentary govern- ment revived again. I say, that what would be improper to be done by the Impe- rial Parliament against us would be improper to be done by us against the Local Legislatures. Now, we never can proceed upon the assumption that this Parlia- ment is wiser, in matters within the purview of the Local Legislatures, than the Local Legislature or the Local Government are. The assumption in our Constitu- tion is that authority is vested in those who are most competent to exercise it. Certain general mattere are entrusted to us, because it was believed — in the public interest — that wo could do better for the whole community than each section of the community could do for itself. It is upon that ground that the Union is established ; but it is also assumed, in the reservation of certain powers to the Local Legislatures, that they are the most competent to dischage the duties connected with those powers. If they are the most competent, upon what ground can w« interfere ? "What right would we have to interfere ? "Why, the very ground on which interfe- rence is .Tfiked in this case would, if it had been put forward when the Constitution was framed, have been sufficient to have kept the Province of Quebec out of tl»e Union. Are you going to eatrap them into a union by a form of constitution which seemingly gives them exclusive control over certain subjects, and then, after th«y have become members of the union exercise a meddlesome oversight over their domestic affaire ? That is what is proposed. I say that is an improper thing, and I repeat that you never can safely undertake, even where a Local Legislature goes wrong, to correct their errors, instead of leaving the correction of those mistakes to the electors where it constitutionally belongs. Now let me call your attention to a precedent or two on this subject. When this question was raised in connection whith the New Brunswick School Bill, Lord Carnarvon said : " That the Constitution of Canada does not contemplate any interference with proviacial legislation, on a subject within the competsnce of the Local Legislature, by the Dominion Parlia- ment, or, as a consequence, by the Dominio* Government." There is the limit Lord Carnarvon sets for that authority to disallow. He asks : Is the question one competent for the Local Legislature to deal with ? K it is, your jurisdiction is excluded, your right to interfere is excluded. The Act may be unwise, but that is for them to judge, and not for you. You are not made a sort of second body to represent the people of a particular Province in provincial matters. In that fcame case, the law officers of the Crown, Sir J. D. Coleridge, the present Lord Chief Justice, and Sir George Jessell, afterwards the Master of the Eolls, one of the most distinguished judges of his century, said : " Of course it is quite possible that the new statute of the Province may work in practice un- favorably to this or that denomination, and, therefore, to the Roman Catholics, but we did net think that such a state of things is enough to bring into operation or restrict the power of appeal to tlie Governor General." Now, here was an Act which he said, might work unfairly and injure a particular class of the people who were complaining, but with which, as it was within the 'i-fW 122 exclusive jurisdiction of the Province, although injustice might be worked, it was not the business of the federal authority to interfere. That is the doctrine clearly laid down in this case. In 1875, when the then hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Masson) brought this matter before the House, we refused to comply with his wishes, we refused to se ek to set aside the provincial legislation upon the subject ; and when Bishop Macin tyre, of Prince Edward Island, asked the Government of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie) to disallow the school Bill of that Pro- vince, which, he complained, was unfair to his people, we refused to interfere because we bolieved the matter to be wholly within the jurisdiction of the Legisla. ture and Government of Prince Edward Island. What we then declined to do for the Eoman Catholics we now decline to do against them. We are acting consisten- tly ; wo are seeking to uphold on this, as on that occasion, the principle of provin- cial rights. The first Minister, in discussing the report of the school Bill of Now Brunswick, laid down this proposition, that there were only two cases, in bis opinion in which the Government of the Dominion was justified in advising the disallowance of a local Act. The first was that the Act was unconstitutional and ultra vires, and, the second, that it was injurious to the interests of the whole Dominion. Now, there is no doubt whatever about the soundness of the hon. gentleman's first propo- sition, and there is no doubt about the soundness of the second proposition, if thore is no possibility of disputing the facts. The Grovernment of the Dominion could not act, and they would have been guilty of a violent breach of the constitution if, be- cause they held a different opinion from the Local Legislature, they should set up their judgment against the solemn decision of the Province in a matter entirely within the control of that Province. That was the position of the hon. gentleman on that important que tion, and with that position we never quarrelled ; to the prin- ciple laid down on that occasion we unreservedly suscribed, and to that we have ever since adhered. Let us look for a moment at the federal principle. If the Gov- ernment were completely federal, there would be no power of disallowance, and I have always been of opinion that the power to disallow was an unfortunate provi- sion of our Constitution. I have always been of opinion that it would have been on the whole, very much better to have left the question, as in the neighboring republic, entirely to the courts, rathei'than take the risk of the pressure which may be brought on Administration, from time to time,to interfere in a way detrimental to the rights of the Provinces. The first question to be asked is : Is the Act in controversy within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province ? If it is, upon what grounds can its disal- lowance be called for ? Where the Minister of Justice thinks an Act is udra vires, and that serious wrong might be done by allowing it to come into operation, he may make it a subject of correspondence with the law officer of the Province, and if after full discussion with that law officer, he is still of opinion that the Act is ultra vires he may disallow the Act, instead of leaving it go into operation until pronounced void by the courts. Now, what the hon. gentleman who has made this motion proposes is to convert Parliament into a Court of Appeal. He propeses to make this House a court for the purposes of diciding the limits of local and federal jurisdiction. Well, this Parliament may have a question of that sort, when it un- dertakes itself to legislate, forced upon it, and it must, for its own purpose, decide whether the quastion is ultra vires or intra vires. The House, it seems to me, is a body ill suited to exercise judicial functions, and to undertake to say, in any question or propo- sition of this sort, what is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province, and the exclu- sive jurisdiction of the Dominion. Now when we look at the Constitution, we find that everything relating to property and civil rights is under the control of the Local Legislature, except in so far as the control of property and civil rights is specifically given to the Dominion in the provisions of section 91. I am inclined to think that we often forget how comprehensive those woi-ds ai*e : " property and civil rights. " Civil rights, barbarians of course have none. The civil right is a right regulated by the State. It is the exercise of a right, that belongs to the indi- ai ri r tl ^ « :ed , it waa ino clearly (bonne (Mr. his wiahes, ibjoct ; and lent of my >f that Pro- interfere ho Legisl^ 1 to do for ', consisten- of provin- «1I of Now bis opinion sallowance vires, and, ion. Now, irst propo- n, if there tt could not tion if, be- )uld set up er entirely gentleman to the prin- .t we have IftheGov- nce, and I late provi- de been on republic, e brought le rights of irsy within ^n its disal- dra vires, (ration, he rince, and lie Act is tion until made this ropeaes to .nd federal en it un- se, decide 3 a body ill 1 or propo- the exclu- we find ■ the Local pecifically to think and civil ight is a the indi- 123 vidual, in a way consistent with the rights and liberties of another individual. It may embrace religious as well as political creeds. The relations between parent and child, between guardian and ward, between master and servant, are all civil rights. The relations between the Churclics and the State are civil rights. It is possible for a Local Legislature to say this religious body may bo endowed by the State, and another shall not be endowed. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a Local Legislature endowing a church, if it sees proper todoso. In the exei'cise of those powei'S over property and civil rights, it may do so. It may regulate the observance of the Sabbath and the observance of holidays. It may make our ecliool system secular or denominational, in so far as it is not prevented by a specific ]>i-ovi8ion of the Constitution. It may make the school system wholly religious. Ttio Province of Ontario to-morrow might make a provision doing away with public schools and adopting a system of denominational schools in its stead. I do not knoAV any ground upon which we could interfere on the subject of the rel ations between Church and State in a Province, except it would be in saying that a person belonging to one denomination may have the elective franchise and another not. The hon. gentleman told us yesterdey that the connection between Church and State was entirely abolished by the Act of 1854. The hon. gentleman sought to leave the impression on the House that that Act was a finality, that the Provinces wei'e res- trained in some way by that Act. Why the Province of old Canada, which passed that Act, might the next year tiave repealed it, and have established the old Church of Scotland as the Established Church ofCanada,or the Church ofEngland,or the Metho- lUsts, or some other body. Of course, in my opinion, as an opponent of the connection of Church and State, it would be unfortunate to do anyone of these things, but the power is not taken away simply because it would be unwise, or inexpedient to use it. Now, the Local Legislature in any Province may very widely depart from the order of things which existed at Con fedei-ation. Everyone who knows the history of this Union l-nows right well that, at the period of Confederation, there was a dispo- sition on the part of Ontario to take one view of public policy, and on the part of Quebec to take another view. There were a numoer of questions upon which thero was friction; and what was one of the objects of the dir^solution of the old Legislative Union, and the establishment of the Federal Union in its place ? It was to get rid of those difficulties, by allowing each Province to take its own couree. Whether that was wise or unwise, whether it was the best in the interests of civilisation, or whether it would lead to a different result, each Legislature was free to decide for itself, within the limits fixed by the Constitution, what course it would adopt. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr, McCai-thy) yesterday concluded his speech by a quotation from a speech of Prof. Caven. I have not the pleasure of knowing Prof. Caven jjersonally, but every thing I have heard in regard to him has led me to the conclusion thathe is one of the ablest thinkers in the Dominion, and that he is not a gentleman likely to form an erroneous conclusion when all facts are properly before him ; but he lays down in that speech three propositions. One was that the appro- priation of these funds in the Province of Quebec was a malversation of public funds. Now, that is not so. That is a total misapprehension of the state of the question. Quebec may have acted very unwisely in dealing with the funds as she did, but the Legislature of Quebec was as free to deal with the funds under the control of that Province as this Legislature is, or a private party is to deal with the moneys and property belonging to him. Whether Quebec has used the moneys wisely or unwisely it is not necessery here to discuss. The fact is that the money was her own to do as she pleased with. It was under her sovereign control — for, for this purpose, she is sovereign — and it was no more a misappropriation of her money than it would be if we were to take moneys which we have been in the habit of devoting to one purpose, and were to withdraw them from that purpose, and to use them for some other and different purpose. We have had discussed here these three questions : To whom did this property belong ? how was it acquired ? how was v\ w 124 the ownership lost ? In part it is said to havo been granted by the King of France, in part it consisted of private benefactions, and in part it was property purchased by the society with its own money. Now, as to the first two classes of property, they wore given to the society to propagate the Roman Catholic religion. The society itself was not an end. It was not for the advantage of the society, as a society, that it was given to the society as a means to an end, and that end r.^as the propagation of the Roman Catholic faith, the society forming a part of that church. If the views of that society were in any respect at variance with the views of the church, then the property was not given for the promotion of those views. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) said that the church to which he belonged had been de- spoiled of its estates when the Clergy Reserves were secularised. Why, the Clergy Reserves never belonged to the church. They were reserves, not grants. Tiiey belonged to the State. The State held them during its pleasur© for a particular pur- pose, and, while that pleasure continued, the State applied the proceeds to that purpose. But vhore were 57 rectories, and those wore grants, and, when the con- nection between Church and State by tb« Act of 1854 was declared to be abolished those 5t rectories were not taken from the church. The church retained those rectories because they wore its private property at the time this Act of 18r)4 wivs passed. Let me state some of the analogies which I think may be fairly used to illustrate the position of the Jesuit Society. That society had very much the same I'elation to the Roman Catholic Church in New Franco as the trustees of Queen's College have to the Presbyterian Church, or Victoria College to Methodists, or the trustees of MciMaster Hall to the Baptists. Now, if any of these corporations failed, and the Crown took possession of the property which belonged to the extinct corpo- ration, would any one of these denominations be quite satisfied with the result ? For instance, if Queen's College was taken possession of by the Crown and its property sold, and the moneys put into the Consolidated Revenues of Ontario, would not the Presbyterian body assert a moral claim, in spite of the legal right which might belong to the Crown in respect of those properties ? That is very much the position which the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada took towards the Crown when the Crown appropriated these estates. It is said by the hon. gentle- man that these are very improper people, that they have been intriguers, political intriguere, in every country in Europe, and that they are not to be trusted. Well, speaking from the ethical point of view, that reminds me very much of the position of a man who owes another and does not want to pay what he owes, and he says : I will not pay the man I owe because he is a drunken rascal and beats his wife, and, if I paid him the money, he would get drunk and would beat her again, and, as I am a moral man, I prefer to keep the money. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) yesterday went on to state the origin of the title of the Crown to this property. I do not attach any importance to this, for this reason, that the legal title of the CroAvn is not disputed by the Prime Minister of Quebec, although, historically, it is an interesting question as to how the Crown came into possession of these estates. The hon. gentleman yesterday stated four theories, three of which must be erroneous, as to the way in which the Crown acquired possession. Ho cites two of these from two separate reports of the Judge Advocate General, Marriott. The one was that the property had been confiscated by the King of France before the Conquest, and was part of the public domain belonging to the King of Fiance at the time of the Conquest. The law officers of the Crown, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, did not concur in that opinion, and did not act upon it. Then Mr. Marriott gave another opinion that these estates belonged to the General of the Oi-der, and that as proprietor there was no provision made for his selling or dispo-^ing of them, that the only parties who had a right to hold estates in Canada were those who were British subjects, that the General of the Order was not a British subject, that no provision was made for selling except by those who wished to leave the country, and as the General of the Order had never been in the country, he could 125 of Prance, irchasod by )erty, they Dhe society ciefy, that iropagation f the views urch, then I. member i been de- he Ciergy nts. They ;icular pui-- ds to tbnt the con- I abo1i»hoil inod those 18;" 4 was ly used to the same >f Queen's ts, or the ons failed, inct corpo- esult? For 3 property lid not the ich might le position •k towards on. gentle- i, political 3d. Well, le position he says: wife, and, id, as r am .h Simcoe Crown to that the although, )0380S3ion of which Ho cites Marriott. CO before of France rnoy and it. Then •al of the dispo-ing ere those subject, leave the he could not soil, and bo the property necessarily belonged to the Crown. This may bo ingenious but it is not sound. Then there was also the title set up based on the Conquest, and there is the title set up by the extinguishment of the corporation by iho rope's bull. When we look at the papers we find a proclamation, dated in 1774, ill which, the Crown declares its intention to take possession of these estates in con- ijcquoiice of the dissolution of the order, and the proclamation seems to have been lopuatcd again in the Eoya' Instructions given in 1791. It is said in the Boyal Instructions ; " It is our will and pleasure that tke Society of Jesus be suppressed and dissolved, and no longer continued as a body corporate or politic, and all their poscr had been ' the virtue both thoso 3se parties tie to thoir ity of the fwd largely on of these nay be the ^o, and the Ir. Meroier ery proper to me, with lember for latedthisas liatiou,still om my in- rerogative, %n English in exactly ) would be ir property e hon. gen- jolute sepa- tter if it is ,te. If the le were ad- put an end should not nthe fund, introduced on at that ,e 80 far as es or com- ; and the reply: It upon thoir ith Africa, lis money, its claim ce of those ien by the will re- ase — with Ise, on be- due to the Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Moro. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Very much more, I tlunk. And that veiy Act, under which the money was paid and which was declared to bo for the purpose of putting an end to the connection between Church and State, upon the theory of the member for North Simcoe, actually established connection between Church and State. Then there is another consideration. So far as I remember the provisions of that Act, the right hon. gentleman made its provisions depend upon the successful carrying out of the arrangement by those parties who were intcrofited in the matter. If it was treason for Mr. Mercier, and contrary to the Act of Supremacy, to enter into dis- cussions with any outside person as to the settlomont of the disputes in regard to the Tesuit matter, was it not equally improper to enter into a commutation arran- fement with a party who was not a member of Parliament, who had not as- at in arliamont, and was not in any sense a representative ? The right hon. gentleman • entered into correspondence with the bishop and with other parties, and it was for the purpose of deciding — what? It was for the purpose of deciding whether com- mutation should be had with the church or not. The Legislature confirmed in ad- vance what was done. Now, so far as this case is concerned, my point is this : No one pi'etends that the bishop or any other church dignitary was made a party to the enactment because he was a party to the terms of settlement. Yj moro is the Popo a party in this Bill, but a party to a contract, which this Act subsequently brought; forward was intended to carry out. Let me take another case. Supposing, in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Government had entered into a contract \7ith Sir Georgo Stephen, Sir Donald Smith, Mr. Mclntyre, and Mr. Kennedy oi !f[ew-York, and certain parties in Paris. The right hon. gentleman might have set out the correspondence in the Bill, and then we would have a Bill iu exactly similar terms to the provincial Act respecting the Jesuits'estates, and the right hon. gentle- man would have had in that contract and Act the names of parties who wore non- residents of this country. He might have had in it the name of some party at Frankfort. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Mr. Eeinhardt. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Yes, and the parties in Paris. Tho right hon. gen- tleman might have had all those names in the Act and according to the view of tho hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), if it had not been a violation of the Act of Supremacy to have dealt with foreign parties who might be regarded as capita- lists, the right hon. gentleman might have been open to the suspicion of legislating for Canada not simply by the Queen and the two Houses, but by the aid of German, French and New-York bankers. It is said by a writer in tho " Law Journal " that this Act is " ultra vires. " Tho writer says : " It is ultra vires the constilutional power of a Colonial Legislature to confer on or delegate to any fo sign Sovereign or Tribunal lawful jurisdiction or autbority to determine or ratify the dis- tribution of the moneys or properties of the Crown, or how money grants to the subjects of the Grown within its Colonial jurisdiction are to be distributed.'' This, I have no doubt, is intended as a legal proposition, embracing this particular case or Act before us. Let me say that it is wholly beside it. There is here no foreign potentate ; there is a foreign party interested. The foreign party is clai- ming a property, and that foreign party negotiaved with Mr. Mercier prior to legis- lative action. Those negotiations were simply a contract with the Crown, prior to any legislation, and prior to the meeting of the Legislature. He did just what the bankers in Paa-is did in regard to the Canadian Pacific Eailway, with the ditference, that the Pope, as tho head of the church, acting not personnally, claimed the rights the moral right at all events, to this property. Mr. Mercier said ; You have no legal. 128 right I can on' iccognizo a moral right. So there was no quewtion of sovereign right, and thciv was in no way a violation of tlio Queen's supremacy by Mr. Mercier who entered into negotiations and dealt with the Pope in the samo way as be would deal with any other party having a claim against the Government, whether foreign or native, and Mi*. Alorcior, after an agreement was arrived at, went to the Legisla- ture and sought to give efl'ect to it. The Legislature, with its sovereign authority over the quoution, confirmed the agreement which thus had been entered into. Let mo call the attention of the House to an opinion given by Lord Solborno on this ])oint. In the case of Brown vs. Gav6, &c., ao Montreal, 6. Privy Council Appeals, 173, counsel said appeals to the Pope were in oontravention of I Elizabeth. Lord Sclborne observed : " That statute is not understood to make it an oir^nce at law for Roman Catholics, in this country or in Ireland, to carry appeals to the Pope. The Pope is a sort of arbitrator, taking a legal view of their position, whom they may consult upon the question." That is the position, and the Eoman Catholic in Canada do not violate the Supremacjr Act in appealing to the Pope for the purpose of settling anv ecclesiastical or spiri- tual question in which they are interested. I will place the dictum of Lord Selbome against the authority of the Toronto " Law Journal ", and I think those hon. gen- tlemen who were converted to that side by the powerful argument of the Toronto ^' Law Journal ", may be converted back again by the still higher authority of Lord Selborne. The " Law Journal " says : " But the statutes or Elizabelb, the express words, abolish the usurped jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, heretofore unlawfully claimed and usurped within the realm and other the dominions to the Queen belonging." I ask the indulgence of the Honse for a moment while I call its attention to the po- sition of this question. It is necessary to look to some extent to the history of the question in order thoroughly to understand the pretentions of the Pope, and his rela- tion to the church in questions of this sort. I will refer to the views that are ex- pressed by Lord Selborne in his book on the English Establishment. He says it was the practice in various times, in order to maintain the ancient privileges of the church, not to permit of appeals to Eome, that it is shown by the constitution of Clarendon, and by earlier provisions of the law, that this was then the practice ; but that when Stephen came to the Throne, and his brother, who was the Pope's Legate, was also the Bishop of Winchester, he introduced another practise and they permitted, and in fact authorized appeals to Eome, which were at fitful intervals continued down to the time of Henry VIII. The statutes that are found in the period of Henry VIII (end wich were repealed under Mary), which put an end to the appeals to Eome, were re-enacted oy this statute of Elizabeth. Let me call your attention just for a moment to indicate in a brief summary the provisions of these Acts. Henry the Eighth legislated in favor of ecclesiastical emancipation ia this particular. Before his day, and up to the middle of his reign, appeals were taken to the Pope in testamentary acts, and on the questions of matrimony, divor- ce, tithes and oblations and by the statute of the 24th year of Henry VIII, chap. 12, those appeals were abolished, and it was declared that hereafter they were all to be adjudicated by the King's temporal and spiritual courts. It will be seen that in every one of these cases there was involved some material interest. They wore not purely spiritual cases, they grew up because the ecclesiastical law was applied to parties' who made their wills, and soon, at the period of their deaths ; and as the ecclesiastical law was not understood by the English lawyers, appeals were frequen- tly taken on civil cases from England to Eome. By an Act of the 25th year of Henry VIII, cap. 19, it provided for the settlement of all those cases by the King's Majesty. It ft)rbade the clergy, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, to make a i 12!) sovereign '. Merciei' be would )r foreigD 9 Legisla- authority Dto. Let (le on this AppoalH, .h. Loi-d ics, in this }r, taking a upremac^ il or 8f iri- i Solbome hoa. gen- e Toronto ty of Lord itiOQ of Itie I oltier tiie to the po- tory of the id his relu- lat are ex- 5e says it ges of the )itution of practice ; the Pope's and they intervals md in the an end to >t me call )vi8ions of ipation in als were ny, divor- chap. 12, Q all to be that in wore not Dl applied to ind as the e frequcn- year of he King's :o make ft Aionstitution without the King's assent, and it forbiulo appeals to Rome otlior than those that wore permitted by cap. 12 of an Act pansod in the 24th year of Henry VIII. liy an Act pas8oitrator acting according to certain judicial principles, and that he has the right so to act, and that the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom have a right so to appeal to him, is beyond all question. We have here submitted to us in this amendment, and in the speeches which have been delivered in its defence, a proposition as to whe- ther the law is in that respect the same in this country, or whether the Roman Catholics of the Province of Quebec are more restricted in their right^j than the Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the rule which I have quoted from Lord Selborne came into being after the statute of Eliza- beth was relaxed, when the dissent from the Establishment was permitted, and when a large portion of the population of the United Kingdom were privileged to worship in some other form or way than according to the Establishment without having their civil rights impaired or their liberties interfered with. Now, Quebec received its law from the King, subject to the terms granted in the capitulation. There was no statute of Elizabeth in force and that statute was not carried to any one of the colonies. I might quote the view of Lord Mansfield, whose authority is unquestioned both in judicial decisions and in a letter addressed to Mr. Grenville, the Prime Minister, in 1*764, in which he says that the penal laws of the United Kingdom are never carried to a colony as part of the common law they take with them. If that is so in a colony settled by the people of England, it is much more so 130 If in tho case of a colony thatlrt socurod bv conquo«t. Such a law cannot operate, m the hori. tho Minister of Jiistico pointed out ln«t ovoninj^, unleHs it would bo by the abrogation of all those rights that were ceded by capitulation and contained in the Treatj of 1763. Now, we have in the Act 14 Goorge III, chapter 83, thin provision : " For lli« more porfuct securily and easn ofilio miri'ls of llie inliihilants of ltn t-aiil IVovincw, it is hereliy declured, that His Majesty's subjucls urolV'ssini; the religion of the Church of Home, or and in the said Province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy the free exercise of the relii^ioii of the Church of Home, subject lo tlio King's supremacy, dfichired und estabhshod by an Act raadu in the tirst year of the reign of Queen Elizabetii, over all the dominions and countries which ihtui did, or thereafter should belong lo the Imneriul Crown of this realm ; and that the clergy of ihn said churcli may hold, receive and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights with respdcl to such persons only as shall profess the said religion." The whole Act of Elizabeth is not introduced by this, but only those provisions. I think sections 7 and 8, which relate solely to the (luestion of the Sovereign's supre- macy, and that supremacy is not affected, as Lord Selborno points out, by an ap- peal to the Popo as the spiritual head of tho Roman Catholic Church, who, in deci- ding questions relating to tho church over which he has jurisdiction not incompa- tible with the civil law, acts as a moral arbitrator. Of course, the ])08ition of tho Rom an Catholic Church in the Province of Quebec is not altogether that of a vo- luntary association ; it has certain connections with the State. It is not true that we have an entire separation between Church and State in all the Provinces of this Dominion. Tho Roman Catholic Church in the Province of Quebec occupies a some- what anomalous position. Under the Quebec Act and ever since, that church ban been allowed to collect tithes from its members, but not from members of other reli- gious persuasions. Tho collection of those tithes, for tho purposes mentioned, im- poses on the church certain obligations. For instance, a case has been decided in the Quebec courts in which a resident of a parish who had paid his church rates, insisted on the cur^, with whom he had some difference, baptising his child, and tho curd refused ; and a judgment was given enforcing the rights of the parishioner as against his ecclesiastical superior. And so with regard to other matters, in so far as the church enjoys certain special advantages, the civil authorities have a right to see that the corresponding obligations are properly enforced whenever the question is raised. It was on this ground that judgment was given for the burying of Guibonl within the ground usually regarded as consecrated. In discussing this question tho court said : " Nor do their Lordships think it necessary to pronounce any opinion upon the difflcult ques- tions which were raised in the argument before them touching the precise status at the present time of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. It has, on the one hand, undoubtedly, since tho cession, wanted some of the characteristics of an established church ; whilst, on the other hand, it diifers materially in several important particulars from such voluntary religious societies as the Anglican Church in the Colonies or the Roman Catholic Church in England. The payment of dime* to the clergy of the Roman Catholic GhurcV by its lay members, and the ratability of the latter lo the maintenance of parochial cemeteries, ..re secured by law and statutes. These rights of the church must beget corresponding obligalitnis, and it is obvious that this slate of things may give rise to questions between the laity and the clergy which can only be determined by the municipal courts. It seem?, however, lo their Lordships to be unnecessary to pursue this ques- tion, because, even if this church were to be regarded merely as a private and voluntary religious society, resting only upon a concensical basis, Courts of Justice are still bound, when due com- plaint is made that a member of the society has been injured as to his rights, in any matter of a mixed spiritual and temporal character,' lo enquire into the laws or rules of the tribunal or authority which has inflicted the alleged injury.— 207-208. Their Lordships conceive that if the Act be questioned in a Court of Justice, that Court has a right to enquire, and is bound to enquire, whether that Act was in accordance with the law and rules of discipline of the Roman Catholic Church which obtain in Lower Canada, and whether the sentence, if any, by which it is sought to 1)6 justified was regularly pronounced by any authority competent to pronounce it." And so far, on account of its special rights, making it to a limited extent a State 131 Church, it has impoHoil upon it cortuin obligationn, and ho far tlioso may bo brought boforo ordinary civil trii)unftU for tho purpoHo of Ihoir onforcomont. Hut boyond this, there is no connection ; boyond thin, it is [»uroly a voluntary usHociation, and it has the sumo right of appeal to tho Pope as the spiritual head of the church that any other church would have to appeal to the couHtitutcd authority of that church. It is not a national, it is a Catholic Church, that in, its authority extends, regardleHs of political boun 'iries, over all those who profess its faith. Now, to deny that right, so far as Loixl .iolborno lays it down — and that is as far as it is assorted in this par- ticular case— would be to say to those of tho Koman Catholic persuasion : Although you may have your notions of church polity, which are not tho same as ours, yet you are not at libort}' to assert them ; because you believe that a church may have boundaries wider than thoMO ofother churches, you are to bo limited by political con- siderations to tho limits of a particular state. I say that would bean intolerable rule. If tho Presbyterian Church of Canada to-day chose to connect itself with that of the United States, I do not know any law that would prevent it establishing its eccle- siastical courts to which both bodies would be subject; and, in so far as tho civil tribunal might bo called on to adjudicate on questions relating to those courts, those questions might bo disposed of in so I'ar as they might bo connected with the mate- rial aifairs of either country. Now, lot me call tho attention of the hon. member lor North Simcoo to this. The Government of England has legislated upon this subject. At the time of tho Amoricain Revolution there was no Episcopal bishop in tho colo- nies now the United States. After tho revolution the Episcopal churches of the indepen- dant colonies required spiritual heads ; they required bishops in the Episcopal chur- ches of tho United States. How were they to get thom ? They wore separated from England, and tho English Parliament had no longer any jurisdiction over them ? The result was that, after a good deal of hesitation. Parliament legislated, and passed the Act 26 Gcorgo III, chapter 84, authorizing the Archbishop of Canterbury to or- dain bishops for tho Episcopal churches within tho Independent Republic of the United States. There was Parliament itself, on account of the connection between Church and State, undertaking to exercise what might bo regarded as a legislative and spiritual jurisdiction in a foreign country ; and they hesitated so long, if I recol- lect rightly, that the Scotch bishops ordained the first bishops before the Act of Par- liament came into operation. The United States never took any offence, so far as I know, at that Act, and never claimed that it was a usurpation of supremacy or an interference with their sovereignty. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in this respect, did everything that the Pope has aone throughout Christendom in tho ordination of bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. Now let me take another case. There was the appointment of a bishop at Jerusalem, for Syria and tho countries of the east, by the English Church. Parliament authorized that appointment. It was the exercise, according to the hon. gentleman's view, of sovereign authority within the dominion of the Sultan of Turkey; and the only ground of embarrassment Avith them was whether the Greek Church, as well as tho Church of England, being part of the ge- neral Catholic Chm-ch, would be offensed and think that the English Church were interfering with their jurisdiction ; and so the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem, warning him that he was to cultivate a spirit of Christian charity and of good understanding with the authorities of the Greek Church in that particular section of the country. But to set up the doctrine laid down by the hon. gentleman here, based on the Act of the Queen's supremacy, would bo to deny to all churches having a particular form of church polity, the privilege ofentending their views of Christianity over the habitable world. I would like to know, accoi-ding to his view, how it would be possible to obey the Divine command to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. The hon. gentle- man would an-est every minister of the Gospel under that theory, who would under- take to preach beyond th" limits of the counla-y to which he belonged. I dare say some hon. gentleman will remember when Hiq Methodist Episcopal body in this 132 country lormcd a part ol'tho Methodist body of the United States, when they had no bishop in Canada, when their conference was held in the State ofNewYork — Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. I remember that well. Mr. MILLS iBothwell) — when their minister wei'e sent to the Province of Ontario, and when, on account of the sympathies of those ministers with liberal views and their opposition to the coimection between Church and State, they were charged with being Americain emissaries in this country. But I never knew any one who pretented to say it was an act of sedition on their pa'-t to come into this country for the purpose of preaching the Gospel. If there had been a State Church in the United States, and had they been sent here by the President, the hou. gentleman might, perhaps, argue as he has on this question, but where are the estates of the church ? Where are the possessions of the Pope that give him anything like tomporal domi- nion ? Ilis authority rests solely upon the implicit acceptance of his teaching and his views by those who profoss to be members of the society of which he is the head, and to say that the Eoman Catholics in this country may not make him their arbitra- tor to decide questions of difference, to decide how property, which the only party competent to decide says rightly belongs to them, shall be distributed, would be to place Roman Catholics not on a footing of equality, but on a footing of inferiority to those who are members of other churches. The hon. gentleman argued, from opi- nions expressed by a writer in the Quarterly^ that the views entertained by the Jesuit Order were such as they are represented to be. Now, I do not know what their views may be. I do not care. I am not a keeper of their consciences, and so I do not interest myself in them ; but I deny altogether that this Parliament has a right to constitute itself an ecclesiastical tribmial or council for the purpose of seeing whether their views are right or wrong. We may decide for ourselves in our individual capacities, but we are not endowed with any power of that sort, and I do not think any Protestant ^vould care to be jud^^-ed by any such rule. I was interested, in looking over the speeches made many years ago in the House of Common (England), when it was said that certain members of the Church of En- gland were adopting Armenian views, and one speaker, Mr. Eouse, declared that these persons were emissaries of the Church of Rome. He said: " I desire il may be considered how Ihe See of Rome doth eat into our religion, and fret into the very banks and walls of it, llie laws and statutes of this realm. I desire we may consider the increas" of Armenianism, an error that makes the grace of God lackey after the will of nia.n. I desire that we may look into the belly "nd bowels of this Trojan horse, to see if there be no men in it ready lo open the gates to Romish tyranny, for an /.rmenian is ihe spawn of a papist, and lithe warinih of favor come upon him, you shall see him turn into ono of those frogs, thai rase out of the bottomless pit : these men having kindled a lire in our neighbor country are now endeavoring to set this kingdom in a Oame." Now, we know that a large portion of the Protestant community in this "ountry are Armenians; and if we are to judge by the public meetings and the 'ilscn^iions which. have taken place on this question, they are as far from Roman Catholicism as any other section of the community. Anyone who remembers something of the history of Holland, will remember how Grotius, because he was an Armenian, was carried out of the country in a cask ; and how John Barnaveldt was carried into another world en a scaffold because he was an Armenian, and for the very reasons given by Mr. P^ouse that the doctrines they were teaching would necessarily lead to the restoration of Roman Catholicism. There is nothing, in mv judgment, more mischievous than to undertake to pass judgment upon the religious opinions of any portion of the community in a popular assembly and make those opinions the pre- text for withholding rights f^nd for imposing disabilities. We have, irrespective of they had 'ork — f Ontario, lews and charged ' one who )untry for le United ,n might, ) church ? ral domi- hing and the head, jir arbitra- aly party luld be to eriority to from opi- id by the :now vvhat 3nces, and ament has lurpose of rselves in it sort, and [lie. I was House of rch of En- slaied that 111 fret into lonsider the of ma,n. I be no men papist, and 1, thai rase ,ry are now ? "ountry .Isciifstions itholicism ing of the lian, was Tied into reasons y lead to ent, more s of any the pro- tective of Via religious opinion in this House, occasional!}'' given aid to Mission Schools. We have aided the Presbyterian Mission Schools, the Methodist Mission Schools, tho English Church Mission Schools, the Roman Catholic Mission Schools, and I have never heard any one say that because wo did so, as a matter of expediency for the present, and because it was better to establish these schools among tho Indians for tho time being, than public schools,that this Government was com ccted with a church or in favor of any particular church on that account. I am not tho least afraid that, if we have an open field and fair play, Protestantism is likely to suffer in this country, in consequence of the aggressions, or attributed aggressions of the Eoman Catholic Church. I have no doubt whatever, that in a fair field Protestantism will be able to hold its own, and it will succeed just in proportion as it is actuated by the spirit of toleration and ftiirness, which will serve rather to draw men towards it and secure a favorable consideration for those religious vicAvs that it seeks to enunciate, rather than the spirit of intolerance which will repel men from it. How can we secure a fair hearing for our dogmas from our Roman Catholic fricmds if wo do that which they think is unfair to them, and if we undertake to deny to them privileges that we maintain for ourselves ? I am not disposed to confer upon any Eoman Catholic insti- tution in this country privileges that I would withhold from any Protestant institu- tion of a similar character. I believe that the more clearly the line of separation is drawn between Church and State, the better it will be for all classes in this country, but I admit that I am unable to interfere or to assist in drawing that lino in any Pro- vince except in the Province of which I am a member. I have tho right to exercise xi^y privileges as an elector, and if the policy that has been carried out is one that I think detrimental to the public interest I may, in that capacity, o;jpose it; but I have no right, from my place in this House, to undertake to do for the people of another Pro- vince what I can only do legitimately in my own Province, as an elector of that Pro- vince. And so, tho more clearly we have impressed upon our minds the fact that each Province must take care of itself, that it must entirely separate the Church from the State for itself, that with that we have nothing to do, that except by usurpation, we cannot interfere, the sooner we can have clearly impressed upon our minda this line of action and the more steadily we adhere to it the better it will be for all parties con- cerned. The early founders of our Christian religion were men in rather poor circums- tances, and occupying very humble social positions. Their influence, at the beginning was with the humbler classes, with Jewish hucksters and with slaves of the Eoman Empire. They gradually, in the course of three centuries, worked their way up through every grade of nociety until the Emperor himself became a convert to the Christian system. At first they had the best organized Government the world has ever seen, hos- tile to them. If tboy were able, by their industry, their zeal, their self-denial and their devotion, to what they believed to be the cause of religious truth, to overcome such obstacles and conquer such diflolculties, there is no danger that Protestantism in this country, if its ministers are true to the profession of their faith — and, remember, that they are to know nothing else except Christ, and Him crucified — if they are true to their faith and their high calling, and preach the Gospel instead of politics, I am perfectly satisfied that Protestantism will have nothing to fear. I am as read;, as any member of this House to resist encroachment. Why should it be otherwise ? If I, as many others here are doing at this moment, take a position which many of our friends may not concur in, because they have been misinformed, if I would not bo disposed to do Avrong to serve the interest of my own friend8,and those with whom I sympathise, why should I endanger my political position to promote the religion of a portion of the community which I believe to be, in many respects, er- roneous ? Let those answer who f ccuse us of pandering to the Eoman Catholics. I do not pretend to judge for them I judge for myself I accord to them the same free- dom I claim for myself, and I would rather, a hundred-fold, be the victim of tho wrongful judgment of others, than myself become the instrument of wrong to any portion of m^y fellow-countrymen. 134 Mr. CHAELTON. (Norfolk, N. Eidinq.) I feel called upon, before recording the vote I shall give upon the motion now in your hands, to explain the reasons that will actuate me in voting for that motion I feel that, in doing this, I am separating myself from the majority of my friends in this House, that I am acting with a minority, and probably with a very small minority, of its members ; and, were I to look at this question purely from the standpoint of its value in votes, I should no doubt feel perfectly content to give a silent vote, and a vote with the majority. My convictions, however, forbid my voting in this way. I realize that the position I take is an unpopular one in this House. I realize, also, that the position 1 take will quite possibly send mo to private life after the expiration of this Parliament but I feel bound from conviction of duty to take the course I propose to take in reference to this matter. Many of the gentlemen who have addressed the House upon this question have professed to be able to do so entirely independent of all feeling of a religious character. They have professed to be able to divest themselves of all prejudices or bias resulting from their religious belief I do not know that I will claim to be able to do this. I presume that I am iswayed and influenced in the course I take in this matter by my education, by my religious belief, and I approach the consideration of this question, I am free to admit, from the standpoint and influenced by the belief of a Protestant; and, although I shall endeavor to bo, and I believe I shall succeed in being impartial in this matter, I do not, I repeat, believe I shall be able to divest myself entirely of all influences that religious training and religious belief may be calculated to exert in reference to it. I feel that this is a question of very great importance, and one of far reaching consequence, and I feel that it is a question upon which men should act from conviction, upon which men should act in the way they believe they f required to act in the best interests of their country and for the purpose of securing the best results as to the future welfare and the future well being of that country. This question has been discussed from a legal standpoint fully and ably. The views of those who are opposed to the action of the Government in this matter, the views of those who will support the motion of my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), Avere most ably presented to the House and to the country by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). The defence of the Government was made in a brilliant and able effort by the Minister of Justice, and the effort of the Minister of Justice was ably seconded by the scholarly and profound argument of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills). I shall not attempt to traverse the ground tra- versed by these gentlemen. My education perhaps does not fit me for an exhaustive disquisition upon the character of this measure from a legal standpoint, and I shall endeavor to present the case from a layman's standpoint, and to present the reasons which influence me in the course which I shall take upon this great question. There is one featui'e of this case that has not yet been dwelt upon, at least, to any considerable extent — I refer to the peculiar ethnologic conditions of this Do- minion. When the younger Pitt, in 1791, erected the two Provinces in Canada, granting to one Province the use of the French language, French laws, French customs and institutions, giving to the other Province the English language, English laws, and English institutions, avowedly for the purpose of creating two rival, jealous, and, in a sense, hostile Provinces, that the catastrophe that had occurred a few years before, when the thirteen colonies revolted from the British Crown, might not recur again ; when, I say, that he erected these two Provinces upon these divergent lines for this avowed purpose, he certainly succeeded most admirably in creating two Provinces with mutual contrasts in language and in the essential cha- racteristics of nationality. These Provinces are not only diverse in race and in language, but also in religion, and the dominant church in the Province of Quebec is a political factor of the very highest importance in this Dominion. It naturally exercises its power and its great influence for the purpose of forwarding its own i35 lotion now bat motion ny friends very small from the t to give a my voting House. I ,e life after ity to take lemen who le to do so irofessed to ir religious ) that I am ion, by my am free to itant; and, tnpartial in entirely of ed to exert and one cf should act e they f of securing at country. The views , the views . O'Brien), uember for made in a Minister of )f the hon. ground tra- exhaustivo and I shall he reason.s tion. at least, to of this Do- n Canada, ?s, French e, English two rival, occurred a wn, might pon these mirably in ential cha- ice and in of Quebec : naturally g its own interests and designs. It does this, Sir, with sleepless vigilance, it does it with con- bummate ability, and it has been enabled to exercise a most powerful influence upou the destinies and upon the politics of the Dominion of Canada. Now, Sir, as I say, this power is exerted for the furtherance of its purposes, as is most natural. I do not complain of this, I do not say that it is to be expected that any other course would be taken by the French Catholic Church of Canada, I would not say that it was iu the interest of Canada, but it is not unnatural that the church should do this. The Minister of Justice last night, in the course of his speech on this question, in defending Mr. Mercier in the course he has taken in regard to the Jesuit estates, alluded to one fact which exemplifies, in the most vivid light imaginable, the great influence and power of that church in the Province of Quebec. He told us that the Jesuit estates held by the Government of Quebec to be Government property, held by them to bo a property in which the Jesuits' fraternity had no legal right, to which they had no legal claim, notwithstanding the position of the Government in regard to these estates, the Government was unable to sell this property, that it had been offered for sale and no purchasers could be procured. Why, Sir ? Because the power of this church was so great that men did not dare, or would not, as they were deterred by the influence of the church, purchase this property ; the power of this church was so great that estates held by the Government to be the property of the Crown, to be a property to which the church and the Jesuit fraternity had no legal claims, could not be sold in consequence of the opposition of the church to their sale. Well, nothing could exemplify more vividly the great influence of this society than this fact referred to by the Minister of Justice. Sir, I referred, a moment ago, to the peculiar ethnologic conditions of this Do- minion. Now, no man, I presume, in this House or iu this country, would for a mo- ment assert that it was not in the interest of the country that homogeneity, that assimilation, should be promoted. But the question is, how can this result be obtained ? How can the diverse races of this Dominion be made homogeneous, how can they be made to assimilate ? It is desirable that such should be done. Every man who wisnes to see the Dominion of Canada become a great nation, must desire to see the races occupying this country acting in concert, acting in harmony, and to a much greater extent than at present made homogeneous. 1 hold, Mr. Speaker, that any measure that will retard the realization of this desire for the assimilation of these races, that any measure that will, on the contrary, have a tendency to sot them wider asunder, that will have a tendency to create ;ind foster animosities and the jealousies that are natural to the existence of two such races, is a measure that should be deprecated, is a measure that should be opposed by eveiy lover of his country in this Dominion. Now, events as they are developed have hitherto had a tendency, in some respects, to put these two races wider apart, and this very ten- dency, in face of the desire of those who wish to see a homogeneous people and a ^V.o'fit nation, this vory tendency to drive these two races apart, awakens alarm in ■ Ijreasts of tens of thousands of people in this country; and the desire to avert '''A tandency, the desire to bring the races nearer together, to secure greater har- iiifiny and action between them, is a patriotic desire, by whomsoever it may be entertained. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). As in Ireland. Mr. CHARLTON. Not as in Ireland, but as in Canada, with the hopes of the future before us, with the desire to create a great nation, with a desire to have a nation, not inhabited by two races pulling in different directions, jealous of each other, and seeking, the one to crowd the other out of the race, not as in Ireland, but as we hope to see it in Canada, with every influence set aside that would work against the realization of this dream. Now, Sir, there are, in the agitation that exists to-day, great forces beneath the surface; there are undercurrents that we do not see, Tf 136 the power of which, perhaps, wo do not rculizo ; there is an undercurrent that is proceeding from this very desire that this should bo a homogeneous people, a desire to lift this nation up to a higher plane with a common purpose, to create a groat free state. The question that agitates the mind of the people, that creates the interest in this matter which we are discussing here to-day, is, shall the Dominion of Canada bo Saxon or shall it bo Celtic ? Or shall it bo both Saxon and Celtic for all time to come ? Shall the two races live together in harmony, or shall they live apart ? Shall this be one country, or shall there bo a disruption ? The question I, one of great magnitude, the question is one the importance of which cannot bo o^ jr estimated, and the issue, Sir, is one that cannot be shirked. Now, these are Bi'y.sh Provinces. The design was that these should be Anglo-Saxon common wealths, and the tendency to foster an intense spirit of French nationality, a tendency made more pronounced by the tact that that nationality has a national church which naturally fosters that feeling in the promotion of its own interests, is a tendency that we must all deprecate, is a tendency that wo do not wish to see aggravated, is a tendency that those who have the good of their country at heart would rather seo mitigated if not removed, Mr. AMYOT. Oh I Oh I Mr. CHAELTON. My hon. friend on my left laughs. Well, perhaps he woukl not wish to see it removed, perhaps ho would rather see the difficulties intensified. I would rather seo them removed ; I would rather see these two races live in har- mony, I would rather seo them drawing closer together. I have every respect for the institutions of Quebec ; I realize that the character of its institutions, the nature of its laws, and the cast of its society is, in some respects, media3val rather thun modern, but I have every sympathy for Quebec, and I have no desire to interfere with that Province in the least. Mr. CUERAN. Tou do it all the same. Mr. CHAELTON. Sir, I do not propose to do it all the same, I feel that if wo desire to promote harmony between these races, tho introduction of a society that sedulously fosters tho seeds of discord, tho historj'' of which in every state of Christ- endom has shown that it is in its nature an organisation against constituted authority is a great misfortune — Sir, as a lover of this country, as a man desiring to seo har- mony in this country, I deprecate the introduction of that society into the political circles of Canada. It is for that reason that I, and thousands in this .Dominion, depi'ecate the introduction of that society, deprecate the action of the Government in permitting tho incorporation of that society and in permitting its endowment, foreseeing, as they believe they do foresee, in those actions future mischief and future disaster to this country. This is my belief. Now, Sir, it is true that tho Protestants of this country have been supine and nerveless for many years past as regards public questions. They have been for many years past without organisation to guard their own interests and liberties, and until quite recently there has been no distinctive and pronounced Protestant organ. Both the great political parties in this country have sought io obtain French Catholic support. , Tho solidarity of the Catholic French party has enabled them to hold the balance of power ; they have held it, they have exercised it for the advantage of their race and for the advantage of their religion, to some extent at least ; and in the manipulation of this element, and in the influence wielded by this element, it reminds me at eveiy turn of the history of the United States when the slave power — I make the comparison in no other t^enso except that they wero a minority, and acted for their common interest — controlled tho United States for 40 years, although tbey possessed only about one-thii-d of the votes in the House of Eepresentatives. 13T controlled the United States because they acted in their own interests at every turn, and supported first one party and then the other as circumstances incident to their own requirement made it necessary to do. Wo have had the Protestants, as L have said, without an organ, without an organisation, and not awake to their interests, and it i» only of recent days that the people are awakening to the danger which, in the estimation of many Protestants, threaten them in this country. I make no apology for being an Anglo-Saxon. I do not consider it a disgrace. I do not consider it even a disadvantage. I look back to the history of the raco with pride, I look back to the history of that mother of nations — England — and I think it is a glorious history. I think her institutions are good institutions and that she has been a blessing to the world, and i have no apolopy to make for saying that I believe it. I make no apolopy tor saying that, so far as my own Province ia concerned, I would resist the introduction of that system which is peculiar to your Province, Mr. Speaker. I make no apology for saying that, in my belief, civil and religious liberty should be carefully guarded, and any encroachment upon that civil and religious liberty should bo resisted, resisted strongly, resisted vigorously, resisted with courage and resisted without compromise. As regards Quebec, of course there ara certain things there that I would not select as a matter of choice. I do not,for instance, think it a very great advantage to pay tithes ; I am unable to see any advantage in fabrique assessments, in a church absorbing the wealth of the country and in ita property being exempted from taxation ; but it is none of my business. I do not propose to interfere with it. An hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear. Mr. CHARLTON. If the hon. gentleman can see any blessing in that, he is at liberty to enjoy it. But I would interfere and re.«iist any attempt to impose it upon a country where it was not in existence at the time ; I would feel that to be my duty. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not say this in any offensive sense. Men disagree, men have different opinions, men differ in politics, and in religion, ai^' in what they believe to be for the public interest, and they have a right to do so, and they will continue to do so until the end of time. The Minister of Justice, last night, in referring to old English law, dwelt at very great length on the subject of obsolete laws. I almost imagined before he had concluded that there was scarcely a law in existence that was not obsolete, and that we were scarcely bound by anything on the Statute-book of England. But I think the Great Charter is not obsolete, that charter upon which we have built our liberties, upon which we have constructed British institutions, that charter under which we have responsible government and parliamentary representation, with the people, through their representatives, controlling the expenditure of the country. The Bill of Eights is not obsolete ; it is in force yet. The supremacy of the Crown, as the embodiment of the power and majesty of the people, is not obsolete. Tho safeguards of liberty designed by our forefathers to preserve us from encroachments are not obsolete, and the spirit of liberty is not obsolete among the English-speaking race. And it is for this reason, that the spirit of liberty exists, that the safeguards of liberty are in force, that tens of thousands of men have risen in Canada within the last Iwo months to oppose the endowment of that order, whose interests and character we are discussing in this debate, and whoso character and record I hold it proper and necessary to discuss and examine in tho broadest sense possible. I hold that the incorporation of this order lies ac the root of all this trouble. And it is owing to the fact to which I called attention a few moments ago, that there existed among the Protestants a great degree of supineness, and nervelessness, and of blind- ness to their own interests and the interests of their country, that tho incorporation of that order was not resented at the time and was not prevented. Why, a few years ago, in 18t3, the Orange Order was incorporated by the Legislature of Ontario. Th& 138 Lieutenant Governor of that Province, who was appointed by the right hon. gentle- man opposite, withheld that Bill from assent ; I am unable to say whether by private advices ho was intrncted to do so or not, but he withheld it. But we had here the incorporation of the Order of Jesuits two years ago without any withholding of the Bill from assent, without any interference on the part of the Government, and it seems to me a monstrous thing that so loyal an order as the Orange Order, for it is unquestionably loyal, should be denied incorporation and the Jesuits should be permitted incorporation. It reminds mo of a story, to the effect that an Irishman, on landing in New-York, was attacked by a dog, and endeavored to pick up one of the paving stones, whereupon, on failing to do so, ho said : It is a queer free country this, where the dogs are let loose and the stones are chained down. This is a queer sort of justice that incorporates the Jesuit Order and denies incorporation to the Orangemen ; and I think, while I opposed at the time the incorporation of the Orangemen, on the ground that it would produce dissensions and troubles, the same reasons should have held good in the case of the Jesuit Order as well. The Minister of Justice, last night, held that the Jesuit Order had, in effect, already been incor- Iwrated. He instanced the case of the incorporation of the St. Mary's College, which lad Jesuit professors, and he contended that because the clergy, forsooth, were Jesuits, this was incorporation, in point of fact, of the Jesuit Order. If a college happened to have three or four infidel professors, would it be the incorporation of the infidel order, or if the college had a few Presbyterian professors, would it be the incorporation of the Presbyterian order ? The assumption was preposterous. The Minister of Justice also said that the order had previously been incorporated. If the society was incorporated in a surreptitious manner it affords me reason for saying that it should not have been done, whether it was done or not. Now, Mr. Speaker, the character of the Jesuit Order is a matter, in my opinion, which should receive the attention of this House, and the attention of this country. My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, last night spoke somewhat sneerlngly of Parliament resolving itself into a committee for the examination of theological questions, and my hon. friend, the member for Both well (Mr. Mills), asserted that Parliament had not the right to constitute itself an ecclesiastical council, to judge the Jesuits. Well, Sir, Parliament, in this matter, is neither constituting itself into a committee for the trial of a theological question, nor into an ecclesiastical council for the trial oi the Jesuit Order, but Parliament is called upon, under the circum- stances, to examine into the moral and the political tendencies of the order that is on trial before the people of this country. It has the right to do so, it has more than the right to do it ; it is the bouuden duty of Parliament to enquire as to the character of this organisation, to enquire as to whether those various charges made against this organisation in history for more than 300 years are true, or if any of these charges are true, whether it has proved to be an organisation detrimental to the interests of liberty, in every generation and in every age, or not, and if its ante- cedents are such as they are represented to be, it should be the duty of Parliament to examine thoroughly the question of whether that order is now what it was before. It is a question of the utmost importance; it is not a theological question; it is not an ecclesiastical question, but it is a question of the highest moment to the State. It is a question which should engage the attention of every statesman in the country ; it is a question that has an intimate beai'ing upon the welfare of this country, and I propose. Sir, to examine that question. I propose to examine it, not that I think I am making myself a member of a committee to examine into theological tenets, not that I propose to make myself a member of an ecclesiastical committee to try a religious order, but i propose to look into the antecedents and character of this order, in order to see whether I believe that their establishment in Canada would be detrimental to the political interests of this country. I propose to examine the ques- tion in its political bearing, and in its political bearing alone. Now, Sir, this order had been in exist ^ce for nearly 250 years, when it was suppressed by the authority 139 1. gentle- 3ther hy we had hholding nent, and er, for it bould bo rishman, p one of J country i a queer n to the a of the the same Minister an incor- ge, which ith, were a college ration of I it be the >U8. The rated. If eason for r opinion, country. iringly of leological irted that to judge itself into il council ) circum- r that is las more IS to the jes made f any of fiental to its ante- irliament as before. it is not State. It country ; ry, and I : think I nets, not to try a of this would be the ques- 18 order luthority to which it professed to owe allegiance. I suppose the Pope was infallible then, and if Pope Clement XIV was infallible, and if ho suppressed theordorof the Jesuits he probably had good reasons for doing so, and I think he had. I do not propose to call into question his infallibility. I do not propose to look into the question of the propriety of the step he took in dissolving that order, but I do propose to ask the attention of this House to some portions of the celebrated brief which Popo Clement XIV issued, and by which this order was disbanded. After declaring in his brief the purposes for which the order was instituted, and the various privileges granted by Paul III, and subsequent Popes, the brief of suppression goes on to say : " Nolwilhslanding so many and so great favors, il appears from the Apostolical Constitu- tions that almost at the very moment of its institution there arose in the bosom of this society, ilivers seeds of discord and dissenlion, not only among the companions Ihemsijlves, but with other irregular orders, the secular clergy, ihe'academios, the universities, ihe public scliooU, and lastly, even with the princes of the stales in which the society was received. These dissensions and disputes arose sometimes concerning the nature of iheir views, the time of admission to ihem, the power of expulsion, the right of admission to holy orders without a title, and without having taken the solemn vows, contrary to the tenor of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and of Pius V, our predecessor; sometimes concerning the a isoluteauthoriiy assumed by th^General of the said order, and about matters relating lo the good goi'ernment and discipline of the order ; sometimes concerning dilforent points of doctrine, concerning their schools, or concerning such of their exemption privileges, as the ordinaries and other ecclesiastical or civil ollicers declared lo be contrary to their rights and jurisdictions. In short, accusations of the gravest nature, and very detrimental to the peace and tranquility of a Christian commonwealth have been continu- a'ly brought against the said order. IJence arose that inlinitv of appeals and protests against this society, which so many sovereigns have laid at the foot of the Throne of our i)redecessors, Paul IV, IMus V, and Sixtus V. * ' • '• After so many storms, troubles and divisions, every good man looked forward with im- patience lo the happy day which was to restore peace and tranquility. But under the reign of this same Cl'menl XIII, the limes became more full of dillicuily and storm; complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every side; in some places dangerous seditions arose, tumults, discords, scandals which, weakening or entirely breaking the bounds of Christian charity, excited the faithful lo all the rage of parly haired and enmities. Desolation and danger grew to such a height, that the very sovereigns, whose piety and liberality towards the society were so well known as lo be looked upon as hereditary in their families— we mean our dearly beloved sons in Christ, the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily— found themselves reduced to the nece.-sity of expelling, and driving from their states, kingdoms, and provinces, these very companions of Jesus ; persuaded that there remained no other remedy to so great evils ; and, this step was necessary, in order to prevent Christians from rising one against another, and from massacreing each other in the very bosom of our common mother, the Holy Church. They said, our dear sons in Jesus Christ having sincj considered, that even this remedy was not sutlicienl for reconciling the whole Christian world, unless thai sociay was absolutely abolished and sup- pressed, made known their demands and wishes in this matter to our said predecessor, Cleni-jnt XIII. They united their common prayers and authority, to obtain that this last method might be put in practice, as the only one capable of assuring the constant repose of their subjects, and the good of the Catholic Church in general. But the unexpected death of the aforesaid Ponli.T, rendered this project abortive. " As soon as by the Divine mercy and Providence we were raised to the chair of St. Peter, the same prayers, demands, and wishes were laid before us, and strengthened by the pressing sohcitations of many bishops, and other persons of distinguished rank, learning, and piety. But, that we might choose the wisest course, in a matter of so much moment wo determined not lo be so precipitate, but lo lake due time; not only lo examine attentively, weigh carefully, and take counsel wisely, but aiso by unceasing prayers lo ask of the Father of lights His particular assistance ; exhorting the faithful to co-operate with us by their prayers and good works in obtaining this needful succor." After remarking on what the Council of Trent had decided, with respect to the clergy who were members of this society, the brief proceeds: " Actuated by so many and important considerations, and, as we hope, aided by the presence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit; compelled also by the necessity of our office, which strictly obliges us to conciliate, maintain and confirm the peace and tranquility of the Christian Com- monwealth, and remove every obstacle which may tend to trouble it ; having further considered r 140 that Iho said Society of Jesus onn no longer produce th^'so nhnndanl fruits and llioso great advantages, wltii a view to widcli it was instituted, approved by so many of our predecessors, and endowed witii so many and extensive privileges : that, on the contrary, it was dillicull, or to say iuipossiltlo, tiiat liie church could recover a linn and lasting p(!ace so long as the said society subsisted ; in conse(iueuc(' liomuf, and determined by the particular reasons wo have alleged, and forced by other motives which jjrudcnce and the good government of the church have dict- ated it, the knowledge of which we keijp to ourselves, conforming ourselves to the example of our predecessors, and particularly to that of Gregory X, in the General Council of Lyons; the rather as in the present case wo are determining upon the fate of a society classed among the mendicant orders, l)Oth its constitution and privileges; after u mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge and the fuln(>ss of our apostolical power, suppress and abolish ihe said society ; we dejirive it of all ])ower of action whatever, of its houses, scIkioIs, colleges, hosjiitals, lands, and in short, every other jilace whatever, in whatever kingdom or Province they may bo situated ; \\f abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees and constitutions, even though conllmicd liy oath and approved by the Holy See, or otherwise ; in like manner we annul all ami every its privileges, favors general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to bo as fully and as amply expressed in this present brief, as if the same were inserted, word for ■word in whatever clauses, forra or decree, or under wlia ever sanction, their privileges m"y havo been conceived. We declare every authority of all kinds, the General, the Provincials, and Visitors and other superiors of the said society, to be forever annulled and extinguished, of what nature soever the said authority may be, whether relating to things spiritual or temporal." This, Sir, is a portioa of tlio brief of Pope Cloraent XIV suppressing this order. Now, Sir, I want to enquire whether it will be asserted that His Holiness the Pope of Ronie, in thus suppressing this order, and in using the language ho did with regard to it, was acting in ignorance — whether in his infallibility ho was mistaken as to the character of this order. Some hon. MEMBEES. Oh. Mr. CHARLTON. "Well, I am not very well posted as to the tenets of the church, if the Pope is not held to be infallible there is a popular misapprehension upon that point. If any one in this House wishes to cast discredit on his judgment or on the motives which actuated him in issuing this brief, I havo nothing to say ; but I believe the Pope, in suppressing this order, acted from reason and knowledge in sying what he did in this brief, and that, in issuing it, he acted in accordance with the desire of every king and every statesman in Europe. This order has been arraigned at the bar of history, and has been condemned; I believe it deserved suppression ; and I believe that Pope Clement XIV, acting at the solicitation of the various kings of Europe, suppressed it for good and sufficient reasons. Now, my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Eykert),the other night,read an extract from Macaulay regarding this order, and, as in the case of a good many other extracts, stopped just where he should have gone on. I will take up the thread of the hon. gentleman's discourse, and proceed from where he left off At that point Lord Macaulay proceeded tosay:,ij,^ " But with the admirable energy, disinterestedness, and self devotion, which were charac- teristic of the society, great voices were mingled. It was alleged, and not without foundation, that the ardent public spirit, which made the Jesuit regardless of his case, of his liberty and of his life, made him also regardless of truth and of mercy ; that no means which could promote the interest of his religion seemed to him unlawful, and that by the interest of his religion he too often meant the interest of his society. It was alleged that, in the most atrocious plots recorded in history, his agency could be distinctly traced ; that, constant only in attachment to the fraternity to which he belonged, he was in some countries the most dangerous enemy of freedom, and in others the most dangerous enemy of order. The mighty victories which he boasted that he had achieved in the cause of the church were, in the judgment of many illustrious members of that church, rather apparent than real. He had indeed labored with a wonderful show of success to reduce the world under her laws ; but he had done so by relaxing her laws to suit the temper of the word. Instead of toiling to elevate human nature to the noble standard fixed by Divino precept and example, he had lowered the standard till it was beneath the average level of human nature. He gloried in multitude of converts who had been baptised in the remote regions of the East ; but it was reported that from some of those converts, the facts on which the whole theology of thr oso great Iccessors, cull, or to id society ullegBfi, mve dict- Xdinpie of yons ; tlio mong tho do, out of h iho said hospitals, 3y may be; ions, even wo annul ikon to bo , word for m"y have iciiifs, and d, of what is order. be Pope iid with aistaken 141 Gospel depends had been cunningly concealed, and that oliiors were permitted to avoid persecu- tion by bowing down before the images of false gods, while internally repealing paters and ;ivcs. Nor was it only in heathen countries that such arts were said to be practiced. It was not strange that people of all ranks, and especially of tho highest ranks, crowded to the confessionals in the Jesuit temples ; for from these conf(3Ssioiials none wont discontented away. There the priest was all things lo all men. Ho showed just so much rigor as might not drive those who knelt at his spiritual tribunal to the Dominican or tho Franciscan Church. If he had to deal with a mind truly devout, he spoke in the saintly tones of tho primitive Fathers ; but with that very large part of mankind who have religion enough lo make Ihem uneasy when they do wrong, and not religion enough lo keep them from doing wrong, he followed a very dilFerent system. Since he could not reclaim them from guilt, it was his business lo save them from remorce. Ho had at his command an immense dispensary of anodynes for wounded consciences. In the books of casuistry which had been written by his brethren, and jjrinled with the approbation of his superiors, were to be found doctrines consolatory to transgressors of every class. There the bankrupt was taught how he might, willioul sin, secrete his goods from his creditors. Tho servant was taught how he might, without sin, run olfwith his'niaster's plate. Tho pander was assured that a Christian man might innocently earn his living by carrying letters and messages between married women and their gallants. The high-spirited and punctilious gentlemen of France were gratilied by a decision in favor of duelling. Tho Italians, accustomed to darker and baser modes of vengeance, were glad to learn that they might, without any crime, shoot at their enemies from behind hedges. To deceit was given a license suflicient to destroy the whole value of human contracts and of human teslimony. In truth, if society continued to hold together, if life and property enjoyed any security, it was because common sense and common humanity restrained men from doing what the Society of Jesus assured them that they might with a safe conscience do, so strangely were good and evil intermi.\ed in Ihe character of these celebrated brethren ; and the intermi.xture was the secret of their gigantic power. That power could never have belonged to mere liypocrites. It could never have belongeil to rigid moralists. It was to be attained only by men sincerely enthusiastic in the pursuit of a great end, and, at the same lime, unscrupulous as to the choice of means." .8 of tho 'ehension udgment to say; lowledge cordance has been deserved n of the Tow, my dacaulay ped just tleman's Iroceeded Now, Sir, I spoke of this order having been banished from various countries. It was banished from England in 1579, again in 1581, again in 1586, again in 1601, again in 1604, and again in 1*791; and, Sir, in view of tho character of British legis- lation with regard to the Society of Jesuits, its existence and its presence in any part of the British realm is a contempt of law. By the Chatolic Emancipation Act, 10 George IV, chapter 7, certain political disabilities wore removed from the Catho- lics of Great Britain. The Act recites the oath which Calholics were required to take before being invested with the rights of citizenship and the right to hold office ; and this Act of 1829, which is not an obsolete law, but a law still in flarce, which is a law paramount over all colonial laws, contains an enactment with regard to the Jesuits; and I shall take tho liberty of reading sections 28, 29, .^0, 31, 33 and 34. I shall read them because they have an important bearing upon the case under discussion, because these articles, of this Emancipation Act, clearly prove that the incorporation of the Society of Jesuits is an unconstitutional Act in this country or in any other part of the British realm : re charac- bundation. pty and of imote the Ion he too L'orded in jiternily to in others bhieved in ;h, rather 3duce the the word. pcept and ilure. He St ; but it |gy of the " Section 28. And whereas Jesuits and members of olher religious orders, communities or societies of the Church of Rome bound by monastic or religious vows, are resident within the United Kingdom, and it is expedient to make provision for the gradual suppression and tinal prohi- biiion of the same, therein, therefore be it enacted Uvit every Jesuit and every member of any other religious order, community, or society of the Church of Rome, bouml by monastic or religious vows, who, at the time of the commencem-int of this Act shall hi wilhin the United Kingdom shall, within six calendar months after the commencement of this Act, deliver to Ih-s clerk of peace of the county or place where such person shall reside or to his deputy, a notice or statement in the form and containing the particulars required to be set forth in the schedule to this Act annexed ; which notice or statement such clerk of the peace, or his deputy, shall preserve and register amongst the records of such county or place without any f-^e, and shall forthwith transmit a copy of such notice or statement to >he Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, if such person shall reside in Ireland, or if, in Great Britain, lo one of His Majesty's Prin- cipal Secretaries of Slate, and in case any person shall offend in the premises, he shall forfeit and pay to His Majesty, for every calendar month during which he shall remain in the United Kingdom without having delivered such notice or statement as is hereinbefore required, the sum of fifty pounds. mr 142 " Section 20. And be it furth'T nnacte I, that if any Jesuit, or membor of any sucb rt'ligious^ order, community or society as oToresaid, siiali, utter tliu commencement ofthis Act, come into this realm, he shall be deemed and taken to be Ruilly or a misdemeanor and being thereol'lawrully con- victed shall be sentenced and ordered to be banished from the United Kingdom for the term of his natural life. '• Section 30. IVovided always, and bo it further enacted, that in case any natural born sub- ject of this reiilm, being at the time of the commencement of this Act a Jesuit, or other member of any such religious order, community or society as ofor^'said, shall, at the time of the commence- ment of this Act be out of the realm, it shall be lawful for such person to return or come into this realm : and upon his return or coming into the realm, he is herebyirequired, within the space of si.v calendar months, to delivfr ^uch notice or statement to the clerk of the peace of the county or place where he shall reside, or his dejjuty, for the purpose of being so registered and transmitted as hereinbpfore directed ; and in case any such person shall neglect or refuse so to do, he shall for such otft'nce forfeit and pay to His Majesty for every calendar month during which he shall remain in the United Kingdom without having delivered such notice or statement, the sumof (Kly pounds. " Section 31. Provided also, and be it further enacted, that notwithstanding anything herein- before contained, it shall be lawful for any one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, being a Protestant, by a license in writing, signed by him, to grant permission to any Jesuit or member of any such religious order, community or society as aforesaid, to come into the United Kingdom, and to remain therein for such period as the said Secretary of State shall think proper, nor exceed- ing, in any case, the space of six calendar months, and it shall also be lawful for any one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of Slate to revoke any license granted before the expiration of the lime mentioned therein, if he shall so think fit ; and if any such person to whom such license shall have been granted shall not depart from the United Kingdom within twenty days after the expira- tion of the time mentioned in such license, or if such license shall have been revoked, then within twenty days after notice of such revocation shall have been given to him, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdempanor, and being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be sentenced and ordered to banished from the United Kingdom for the term of his natural life. " Section 33. And be it further enacted that, in case any Jesuit, or member of any such reli- gious order, community or society, as aforesaid, shall, after the commencement of this Act, within any part of the United Kingdom, admit any person to become a regular ecclesiastic, or brother, or member of any such religious order, community, or society, or be aiding or consenting thereto, or shall administer, or cause to be administered, or be aiding or assisting in the administering or taking any oath, vow, or engagements, purporting, or intended to bind the person taking the same to the rules, ordinances, or ceremonies of such religious order, community, or society, every person offending in the premises, in England, or Ireland, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland shall be punished by line and imprisonment, " Section 34. And be it further enacted that, in case any person shall, after the comnence- menl of this Act, within any part of this United Ki.igdom, be admilied, or become a Jesuit or bro- ther, or member of any olhur such religious order, community, or society, as aforesaid, such person shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being thereof lawfully convicted shall be sentenced and ordered to bQ banished from the United Kingdom for the terra of his natural life. " Now, that is the statute which imposes penalties and a fine upon any foreigner who is a Jesuit for coming into the United Kingdom, and which imposes penalties and a fine upon any person who inducts a person into the order, and upon any person who becomes a member of the order. That is taken from the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. Now, I am unable to see, in the face of the provisions of that Act, how the incorporation of this order can be legal or constitutional either in Canada or in any other part of Her Majesty's realm. This case was referred to, some years ago, in a debate in the House of Commons. Mr. Disraeli who was then the First Minister of the Crown, stated, on the 10th of July, 1875, that : " Although no proceedings had been taken against the Jesuits under the Act of 1829, he begged it to be understood that the provisions under the Act are not obsolete, but on the contrary are reserving powers of the law of which the government will be prepared to avail themselves if necessary. " And Mr. Gladstone, who was asked his opinion upon this matter, as to the legality of the residence of the Jesuits in England, referred his correspondents to this Act of Parliament, the provisions of which with regard to the Jesuits I have read. And the Law Journal of England, which contains an account of this matter, then adds : 143 " This Ad, while it carried oiil the w.'ii ll mBinbHrs of olli-ir ri'ijgious onlHrs, cotnniunilies or socioiies of IHh Church of Rome bouml by monaslio or rrtiigious vowa, ' of wiiiuli il recites it is ' oxprtdienl to pro- vide for llie gradual suppression and Una! iiroliii)ilion.' Any of Ijjeso persons, not including nuns, coming into the realm without a license which can last oiilj six moiilh-i, are, by section '2!), declared guilty of a misdemeanor and may bo sentenced to be baiiished for life. Similarly, any persons admitted within the kingdom to niembjrshi]) in any of the orders in question may, by section 31, be sentenced to banishment for life, if, although b'anisheit they rlo not go out of the country, the Sovereign in Council may have (hem conveyed to some place abroad. Moreover, if they are found in thecountiy at the onri of three months they may be convicted again and transported. Will this law be now enforced ? Or will a charilable reserve be shown, entailing, as it naturally will do, further lawlessness. " Now, the treaty ceding Canada in 1763, provided for the freedom of the Catholic religion in the country, 80 far as the law.s of Groat Britain permitted the exercise of that religion, and the Act 14 George ill, chapter 8 5, provided thiit the French Catholics in this country may exorcise the religion of the Church of Rome subject to the King'H supremacy. The right to exorcise this provision is thus subject to the provisions of the law, and one of the provision of that law I have called the attenlioa of the House to with regard to the Jesuit organisation, contained in the Emancipation Act of 1829. It was claimed last night by the Minister of Justice that, at the time of the Conquest, the property of individuals was not forfeited or confiscated. It was claimed that the property of the Jesuits was not subject to forfeiture or confiscation under the terms of the Treaty of Paris ceding Canada to Groat Britain. But I think it must be held that the Jesuit organisation would not he treated upon the basis of individuals, but as corporation, and I find that Act says : " And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all Flis Majesty's Cana'iian sub- jects within the I'rovince of Quebec, the religious orders and communities only excepted " Are to have these privileges. So that the religious orders and communities were, by the terms of the cession, expressly excepted from the privileges granted to the inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, or the Province of Canada. Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). What are you reading from ? Mr. CHARLTON. I am reading from 14 George III, chapter 83, the Quebec Act. All the rights possessed by the citizens of the Province of Quebec, or of old Canada, were rights delegated by the British Crown, rights expressly granted, rights, in every case, subordinate to the supremacy of the Crown, and subordinate to the supremacy of Imperial law ; and, if that Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 contains, as I have shown, express provisions, making it a misdemeanor for a fore- ign Jesuit to come into England, making it a misdemeanor to induce a British subject into the Jesuit Order, making it a misdemeanor on the part of the person who inducts him and on the part of the person who is inducted, in face of the pro- visions of that law, I hold that it is simply preposterous to say that the incorpora- tion of the Order of Jesuits in British America, is a constitutional Act. if the incorporation of this order is unconstitutional, it follows, as a matter of course, that all the Acts based upon that incorporation, are unconstitutional. If the incorporation is unconstitutional, the endowment is unconstitutional, and the Jesuits' Estates Act is an unconstitutional Act, if the Incorporation Act is so. It has been made by British law, upon more occasions than one. an unconstitutional Act to procure judgments or determinations, &c., from the See of Rome, of any foreign potentate. This legislation was first initiated under Edward III, it was continued under Richard II, again under Henry VIII. By 24 Henry YIII, chapter 21, penalties are imposed for procuring inhibitions, judgments and other processes from the See of Rome within the King's dominions— not alone in England, Ireland and Scotland, but in any part of the King's dominions. The 24 Henry YIII, chapter T^ 144 21, prohibits tho Kin^, liis hoirs and HuccesHorfl, kings of tho realm, and all subjoots of llie realm or of tho Crown, for Huing for liconHOB, diHiionsutionn, toiniiositionfl, fucultioB, grantH, roHCi'ipts, dologutions, or any otiior instrumonts in Avriting from Iho liinhop of IJonio, called tho I'opo, or from any pornon or porrtona having or protonding to have any authority bv tiio nanio. " Tho King, his lioira und HUCcoHBorH," being oxpreHHJy named in tho Act, the roigning Hoveroign is bound by tho prohibition ; and it is not within tho conHtitntional powor of a Colonial LogiHlaturo or (iovornor to absolve tho Crown from its provisions, or to onact or assent to any Bill violating this or any other Imperial statute in force in tho colony. Tho Crown can only bo relieved from tho prohibitions of the Act by tho powor that imposed them, namely, tho Imperial Parliament. And in 13 Klizuboth, chapter 2, and 1 Elizabeth, chapter 1, it is provided in more express torrns that: '< Tho usurpRd powt^r and jurisdiclion of tho Bishop of Homo heretofore unlawfully olaimeij and usurped witliiu this realm, aiil other the dominions lo Ihe Queen's Majesty bulonging. " Shall not be exorcised. Neither tho Treaty of Surrender, nor the Act of 1'7'74 did 7nore than to grant the free exorcise of tho Catholic religion in Canada, so far as tho laws of Great Britain permit. But wo are told by the Minister of Justice that a Prorincial Parliament can repeal Imperial statutes as concerns itself, if 1 understood him aright. I do not accept this definition of tho law. I do not hold that tho thing formed can say to that which formed it: what doost thou ? and cun sot aside the mandate of the power which formed it. 1 find in tho British North America Act a provision which is antagonistic to the statement of my hon. friend the Minister •of Justice, The 129th section of that Act contains the following : — " Except as otherwise jirovided Jjy this Act, all laws in force in Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick at the Union,aiid all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all le((al commissions, powers and authorities, und all oflicers judicial, administrative and ministerial, existing llierein at the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made ; 8ui)jt^ct, nevfrlheless (except with respect lo such as enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the I King- dom of (nval Britain and Ireland) to be rejiciil-'d, abolish or aller'id i)y the l-'arliamen iiada ; or by Ihe Legislaluro of the ri'Mpeclive Provinces, according to lh9 authority of the Parliament or of that Logislalure under this Act. " So that by this Constitution of British North America, by section 129, special exception is made as lo this power in regard to such Act as existed by the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain or the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. I have here a case, if it is necessary to quote it, ex parte B,enaud, which bears out this view. The judgment is too long to read unless it is desired, but I can aend it to tho Minister of Justice if ho desires. I have laid down the premises, and I think they •cannot be controverted that the recognition of any foreign potentate, prince or eficlesiastical, in any statute enacted within the dominions of tho Crown of Groat Britain, which recognizes that power or its inhibitions, decress or processes, is an unconstitutional act. Now, tho Estates Bill which we have under consideration does X'ocognizo His Holiness the Pope as a potentate. It treats with that potentate as to the terms of the settlement of a domestic matter in a Province of the Dominion. The Bill is passed subject to the approval of that potentate, as is shown by the language in this return of correspondence in connection whih this matter. I find in the letter of Mr. Mercier to Father Turgeon, dated the Ist May, 1888, in the seventh paragraph, tho following language used : " That any agreement made between you and the Government of the Province will be binding only in so far as il shall bo ratified by the Pope and tiie Legislature of this Province ," " By the Pope and Legislature of this Province ". Sir, the Legislature not only passes a Bill subject to the Pope's approval, but this Act places public money at th© 145 subjocU ositionH, n^ from ving or is hoirij iroign is Colonial onact or ill tho t by tho llizuboth, mt) that : laimmi and nndid ar U8 tho Ljo that a iderntood tho thing asido tho srica Act Minister ia or New mmieslons, : iherein at lively, as if enacted I King- iia Sicily 1 Paraguay 1858 Italian towns 1850 1848 Now, we are told that the character of this order bas changed, forsooth ; that it is not the order it was when Clement XIV suppressed it ; that it is not the order it was when nearly atl the potentates of Europe agreed in demanding that it should be suppressed. " Oh, no," they say, " it is not the same order." How is it, then, that the States I have mentioned have expelled this order since it was restored in 1814 ? and be it remembered that fifteen of these States were Catholic States or communities. I think that is a significant fact. I doubt very much, whether, in view of that fact the argument can be made successfully, that the character of this order has been changed. What was the opinion of Cardinal Taschereau with regard to this order, when it was proposed to incorporate it two years ago ? What was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone in regard to this order, so late as 18Y6 ? I find in the Contemporary Beview^ of June, 1876, that Mr. Gladstone has indicted the principles of which they are the professional exponents on these counts : • " (1) Its hostility to mental freedom at large : (2) its incompatibiiily with thq thought and movement of modern civilisation ; (3) its pretensions against Ihe State; (4) its pretensions against parental and conjugal rights ; (5) its jealousy, abated in some quarters, of the free circulation and use ot the Holy Scripture ; (6) the de facto alienation of the educated mind of the country in which ! I'i 150 it prevails; (7) ils lit'lrimininl Mlf.jrls on the comparalive strenglli an:l morulily of lliy Slates in which it lias sway ; (8) iis tendency to sap veracity in the individual mind." Now, that is an arraignment by Mr. Glodstone of this order, the character of which we are considoring to-day. In 18*79 a dibcussion took place upon the character of this order in the French Chamber, and that discussion was referred to by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) last night. Now, Sir, I do not intend to detain the Ilouse with the speech of Mr. Ferry and M. Bert (since Minister of Edu- cation), Mr. du Bodan, M. le Prevost and others, but the substance of it amounted to this: that the Minister of Education rent and examined the character of the Jesuits' text books, and the character of theii- teachings in their schools and colleges, and the investigation made in regard to the character of that order was such as to satisfy the French Assembly, and the Department of Education in France, that the Jesuits were an order that ought not to be allowed to have anything whatever to do with education in that republic. Their principles were recognized to be incompatible with the indopendonco of every government. They were proved to hold the same doctrines that they had held during the last 300 years. They taught the Divino right of Kings ; they taught that the liberty of the press was a dangerous thing; they advocated religious wars ; they attacked the Kevolution nud glorified the Eevocation of the Edict of Nantes ; they calumniated Necker and Turgot ; they rejected the principles of national sovereignty ; trial by jury was denounced, and liberty of conscience and worship was condemned. In one of these works, by Charles Barthelemy, the following passage, in the chapter dealing with Protestant people, disposes of English morality : — " In London an I all over England, the holiness of marriage is destroyed, bigamy is frequent, the wife is not ilie companion but the slave of her husband ; the conjugal tie is dissolved; the children are poisoned or sold." The subjects treated in Father Humbert's work, published in 1840, " Instructions chretiennes pour les jeunes gens et les jeunes fillos," were found to be so monstrous and filthy, according to Mr. Bert, that though the work was put into the hands of young girls — objectionable passages could not be read in the French Assembly with ladies in the gallery. "Without detaining the House with the evidence placed before the Legislative Assembly in France, by the Minister of Education and others, suffice it to say that upon that evidence the Jesuits wore expelled from the educational institutions of that republic. I think. Sir, I am warranted in saying that we will consult the interest of this country, present aud future, if we do not permit to be established in this Dominion that organisation whose whole history is a history of turmoil, of intrigue, of mischief and of attempts to pull down and destroy constitu- tional authority wherever they have been placed. Sir, we do not want an organisa- tion in this country that will widen the breach that exists between the two great races in Canada ; we do not want an organisation in this country, the influence exerted by which will be so detrimental to the best interests of this country present and future. I have been requested, Mr. Speaker, before closing to read thio resolution placed in my hands ; a resolution adopted at a special meeting of the Piotestant Ministerial Association in Montreal held this morning, it says : " At a special meeting of the Protestant Ministerial Association of Montreal, held this morning, attention was drawn to certain statements made on the floor of the House of Common<>, during the debate on the Jesuits' Estates Act, by tlie hon. member for Stanstt-ad (G. G. Golby), who is re- ported to h ive slated that iin represents the feelings of the Protestants of Quebec , that thf'y have made no complaint ; presented no petition and sought no redress from supposed wrongs, th it, in fact, the Protestants have no grievances, but are treated with mord justice, liberalitg and genero- sity than any minority in the world. " Therefore be it resolved— " That the Ministerial Association repudiate the hon. member's claim to represent the feelings 151 of.lhe Proteslanl community of the Province of Qiiebno. That it is entirely incorrect to say lliat no petitions have been presented against the measure in lavor of lii i Jesuits, inasmuch as this Association presenl'-d a p-^lition against the incarporalion of tlie J-'suils in 1887, to the Legislature of Quebec, and petitions to the Governor General in Council for thii disallDwance of Ihi Jesuits' Estates Act, have been presented from this Associalion, from the Rev. the Presbytery of Ifonlroal, from the Dominion Evangelical Alliance, .ind by some 6,000 citizens fom the city of Montreal and other parts of Ihe Province of Quebec. Th^ mailer also engaging the ejrnesl attention of the Evangelical Alliance at its Gjnforenje in Montreal in October last, and strong resolutions in protest were adopted. " And so par from having no grievances, Ihe Protestant minority has serious cause of com- plaint in relation to many matters, among which the foliov/ing are specified : Tlie division of taxes for educational purposes; the recent unsdUling of ilie foundation of the Superior Education Fund; in the d'-gradation ol' degrees conferred by Protestant Umversiiies ; In the mailer of the marriage laws; in tholaw of compulsory lilhing, and Ihe erection of parishes for civil purposes, both creatmg motives for the removal of ProlesUnts, ac* generally in the virtual eslablishment of one church to the disadvantage of all other churches. " Furthermore, we declare that llie Protestant community of the Province of Qaebec are un- willing lo be indebted to the generosity or liberality of their lioman Gilhoiic fellow-countrymen, but demand simple justice and their equal rights us subjects lo the Queen. " It was resolved lo transmit the foregomg stalement to the hon. member for North Siincoe (Col. O'Brien), with the request that it be rea I lo the House of Couimons by himself, or some other member he may select. "J. COOPEU ANTLIFF, D. D., " Prmdenl of I he Montreal Proteslanl Association, ••\VM. SMYTH, " Secrelary-Treasurer.'' This is the communication, Sir, ofthe Protestant Ministerial Association of Montreal, •duly signed by its officers. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have but few words to say in conclusion. I wish, Sir, to refer to a statement made by my hon. friend the member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills), that if ministers would preach the g^ ^oi instead of preaching polities, it would be very much more in the line of their duty, and more conducive to the public interests. I have heard this charge brought against ministers before — the charge of preaching politics. I remember. Sir, in the great struggle in the United States, when the life ofthe nation was at stake, and when the slave power was making gigantic efforts to strangle liberty in that country, that the ministers ofthe country who stood up in defence of righteousness and right, were accused of preaching politics, one ofthe charges brought against them was that they were stepping out"'de of their legitim- ate province. When they were preaching opposition to slavery and exhorting men to patriotism, whether they were preaching politics or not, they were performing a good work. I hold that, in every emergency, when the liberties of a country are at stake, the minister is a dumb dog who does not raiwe his voice, warning his fellow citizens, and seeking by every influence he possesses to promote the right and com- bat the wrong; and if ministers in this country to-day see it to be their duty to warn the country of dangers impending, to warn it of the crisis threatened to bo precipitated upon it, I say let them do so ; if they do not do so, they are recreant to their trust and duty. Sir, I conclude what I have to say to-night by asserting that I believe this Jesuits' Estates Act is an unconstitutional Act, bocautie the society is under the ban of British law; I believe further that it is an unconstitutional Act by reason of the reference contained in the Bill to His Holiness the Pope ; I believe further that it is unconstitutional by reason ofthe diversion of school funds in the Province of Quebec from their legitimate and proper purpose. And in audition to these three counts of unconstitutionality, I believe that upon the highest grounds of public interest and public good, upon the ground of due consideration of the public weal, present and future, in this Dominion, that this Act should have been disallowed in conformity with the possessed by the Government of this country. TT 155 Mr. MULOCK. (York, K Biding). I admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is with some hesitation that I venture to address this House, as I will but very briefly, upon a subject so grave and important as that now receiving our attention. I cannot conceive of any question that might be fraught with more serious consequences to the welfare of Canada than the question which is now agitating the country, and which ought to receive the best considera- tion of the people's representatives. When I think that the solution of this problem may, according to the determination of this House, have such different results, I have been amazed to find that hon. gentlemen, who I believe in their calmer moments are as true patriots as are to be found, should for the moment allow them- selves to be carried away by bigotry or fanatical zeal and should suggest to this Parliament the adoption of a course that would in my judgment destroy the Union of the Provinces that now constitute Canada. What proposition has the hon. member for Muskoka laid before this House and with what arguments and with what evidence has he sustained that proposition ? Have his arguments and those of his friends justi- fied them, and would they justify this House, in adopting the conclusion which he asks by this motion to adopt ? Sir, the motion that has been placed in your hands by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) alleges that the Bill under discussion for the settlement of the Jesuits' estates, passed by the Legislature of Quebec, was beyond the jurisdiction of that Legislature, and the motion goes on to give reasons in support of that proposition of law. So we have the hon. member alleging, and undertaking to prove conclusively to the House and the country, that this Bill is ultra vires, and on that ground he ask us to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General to wipe it off the Statute-book, Now, Sir, lias he proved beyond all reasonable doubt the premises on the truth of which, Parliament would be justified in coming to the conclusion which he asks ? His able chieftain, the hon. member for North Siracoe (Mr. McCarthy) laid down this doctrine for our guidance. He said : I admit that Parliament should not on this occasion ask the Governor to disallow this Bill if there is a shadow of a doubt that it is not ultra vires. The hon. member for Muskoka says it is M^^ra ujrcs. Now, I ask hon. gentlemen who call on Parliament to adopt this i-esolution, is it admitted beyond doubt that the Act is ultra vires ? We listened last night to the able address of the Minister of Justice. Will anyone say that he did not do more than establish a doubt ? Will anyone say that he did not cite authorities which convinced the vast majority of this House that the position taken by the hon. member for Muskoka and the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr, Carthy) is an untenable one, both in regard to the law of the case and in regard to the alleged facts on which they founded their chi.rges. Taking the advice of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and applying it to what we have heard in this House, and without, and to what we know, of our own knowledge, of the law as well, I think we can fairly conclude that it has not been establish beyond all doubt that the Bill is Ultra vires. Even if it had been, established beyond doubt that the Bill is ultra vires there would, in this particular case, have been the very strongest possible reason Avhy Parliament should not inter- vene and take the case out of the proper tribunals of the land. Is Parliament, a body of 215 men, representing widely different views, depending more or less upon tho fickle populace ; is this Parliament composed of persons more or less prejudiced upon a question of this kind — and no 215 men could be gathered together in any country in the world among whom there would not be found prejudiced men when a question of religion is concerned — is this Parliament, I say, a fit tribunal to find on the law and the facts clearly and unmistakably in order to arrive at an absolute conclusion on a question such as this ? Is there a man in Canada who would assert that it would be fair and j^iist to submit such a question as this to the arbitrament of even my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), for whose honesty of purpose no one has a higher opinion than I ? I might say, also, that the hon. member for North I 1 153 Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) indicated a bias which would hardly qualify him to bo select- ed as an independent juryman to deal with this question. I might run over the list and point out many of the members who have expressed a strong bias on this question and therefore, I doubt whether Parliament would be safe in following their views and in determining how it should find on questions of fact and law. For these reasons I am of opinion that under no cii'cumstances should Parliament determine this question, unless there is no other tribunal in tho land that can deal with it. Could there be a tribunal more unfit to deal with such a question than an assembly Buch as this ? I would ask the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) if he has thought of tho consequence which would follow tho adoption of this motion should it be carried. Suppose to-night the majority of the House should decide to carry this motion, that would be a withdrawal of the confidence of the country from tho Government. What would then have to be tho next stop '! The Government have taken a certain position upon this question, which I am glad to bo able to endorse. They would have to tender their resignations to His Excellency, and cither they would go to the country or the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) would be called upon to form a Cabinet. In either case there would havo to be an appeal to the country upon the new issue. Has the hon. gentleman thought of what tho issuo would be which would be presented to the country on that occasion ? Is any man in this House prepared to present to tho people such an issuo, and to say that it is in the interests of the people that there should be an issue raised of race and religion to determine who shall and who shall not prevail in this Mouse? It cannot be denied that that would be the very next step if this motion was carried, and that step would mean the dividing of this country into two great camps. Who would bo found in these camps ? Our Eoman Catholic brethren, as a whole, would take their place in one camp, and our Protestant friends in another. This is the inevitable issue if this proposition be carried. My hon. friend may pretend that he is but attacking a community of the Roman Catholic Church ; but if he appreciates the * ae senti- ment of the people of Canada to-day, he will find that it is not a que .on of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) and his little band against tne Order of Jesuits, who perhaps may enjoy some degree of unpopularity, but it will be a ques- tion of Boman Catholics against Protestants. Could any one conceive an issue more disastrous to the country than that ? I cannot. It would destroy Canada. And are we to precipitate such a condition of affairs when there is relief at our hands, when there is a fit tribunal to deal with this case, whose judgment will be accepted loyally by all classes and creeds. Does the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) suppose that by tho carrying of this motion he would accomplish the suppression of the Jesuits, if that is what he seeks ?It would mean the defeat of this particular Bill, but what would follow ? Do you not think. Sir, that the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, which enacted that measure nine months ago, if it were disalloAved under the circum- stances, would not be called together again, under the inspiring influence of this racial and religious war or at least religious war ? Would they not, the Quebec Legislature, be assembled together again as quickly as the constitution admitted, and would not the first Act they would pass be a re-enactment of the Jesuit Bill ? Then the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), if he carried the country, would rally his forces here, and would not his first duty, in obedience to the mandate of the majority of the people, be to call upon the Governor General to disallow the Bill again. So the repetition would go on, the public mind being more and more inflamed, and what the end would be no one can tell. Is that statesmanship ? Is that patriotism ? Is that in the interest of British institutions in Canada, or in any country on God's earth ? I have heard the hon. gentleman speak of his love for tho British flag and intitutions. I know he is honest in every sentiment he expresses in that regard, but I grieve to think that he has forgotten he is living in the 19th century. He has forgotten that he has come to free Canada, he has forgotten that the greater Ireland is on this side of the water, and he thinks he still lives in old 154 Ireland, where a minority wielded the power and where a minority was able to exer- tsise its sway. Could he not have been generous enough to have told us at least one little consoling feature in connection with Roman Catholic Institutions ? Sir, I am no Boman Catholic, but I think the truth shouli bo told, I think the whole truth should be told in discussing a question like this, and yet it did not occur to him to utter one word of justification on behalf of any of the Catholic Church, but he, and those who ai'e with him, declared in all their agaments that the Catholic Church Tendangerod every representative institution. Mr. O'BRIEN. If the hon. gentleman will allow rao for a moment, I defy him, from any word which I have uttered in this debate, to justify the statement he has .just made. Mr. MULOCK. I am only too glad to think that I misunderatood the hon. gentleman. If I have not correctly interpreted his arguments, I would be only too glad humbly to apologize to him, and I wish I could say of all who have discussed this question that they have shown the same liberality as, in intent at all events, existed in the mind of ray hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) ; but I think we must all admit that those who have advocated the measure he asks us to adopt, and oven the last hon. member who spoke, my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), asserted that the Roman Catholic Church endangered civil liberty. If that is the case, could not one man among them all have given credit to the church for having at times been, as I submit, perhaps even too loyal to institutions, the de facto governments of the day, in times gone by ? We have only to look back to the history of England in the last few months, and we find that His Holiness the Pope, wlio has no friend amongst them to-day here, found the Marquis of Salisbury, or the Conservative Administration, only too glad to receive assistance from him in the form of the rescript he issued to the people of Ireland in oi-derto induce them to submit to the constituted authority of the land. When His Holiness did that, he did an act which did not commend itself to his own clergy and his own flock in Ireland. He did it against the interest of the church itself in Ireland. He weakened his influence in that island, but he did it, as I understand, according to the well under- stood doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, to be true and loyal in the support of the de facto G-overnment of the day. I am no apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, but, when I hear a charge like this made, some little circumstance comes to my mind, and as a matter of justice I take the liberty of reminding those hon. gentlemen of doubtful memories of such a redjeming feature. Would our loyal friends who propose to set the heather on fire, to add to the inflammatory condition of the public mind to-day, who instead of meeting here in a judicial frame of mind and temperately telling the people what is best, bo good enough for one moment to" think of the grave trust cast upon them when Her Majesty placed in the hands of the people of Canada the British North America Act. Does not that Act — I ignore clauses and technicalities — does not a broad minded, a liberal and a fair interpretiv- tion of that Act say that whatever we do and whatever we legislate, we shall do all things to promote the peace, the order and the government of the people of Canada? When Her Majesty gave us that constitution, she expected us to work out that con- stitution, and not to exercise our majority powers on the floor of Parliament to destroy peace, to destroy order, to destroy good government in Canada, and to destroy Canada. Under these circumstances, I say in conclusion what I said in the beginning, that I am amazed that, when there is one simple possible solution of this question, an appeal to the proper courts of the land, anyone should seek to solve it in this unfortunate way, in a way that would not be a solution but only an aggrav- ation of the evil complained of. For a moment, look at the consequences of the other •course. An appeal to the courts takes place, and, if anyone is dissatisfied with the result of that appeal, he can carry that appeal to the foot of the Throne, and there 155 e to exor- r least one Sir, I am lole truth to him to t he, And io Church defy him, at he hae the hon. 3 only too discussed ill events, think we lopt, and folk (Mr. bevty. If ae church QB, the de i back to lioess the Jalisbury, »m him in je them to lat, he did 1 Ireland, cened hin 3II under- lupport of Catholic ce comes •lose hon. our loyal condition of mind loment to" hands of —I ignore nterpi'etiv- lall do all ' Canada ? that con- ament to and to aid in the on of this X) solve it n aggrav- the other with the md there t,'et llio advice of Uer Majesty, the fountain of wisdom, of justice and of truth, A judgment is thou delivered which will be accepted with satisfaction and resignation by all classes and all creeds ; a finality will bo given to this question, and then peace, order and good government will prevail in the land. Therefore my voice and my vote are in that direction. Without sacriticing a bit of my Protestant sentiment, uitbout sacrificing peace, order or good government in Canada, but assisting to place Canada on a sure, stable and sound foundation, I shall vote against the motion of my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), and I ask him and all those who desire the permanent peace of the country to transfer this case to the proper tribu- nals, the duly constituted courts of the land. Mr. SCRIVER. (IIuntinqdon.) After the very able and exhaustive discussion which has taken place in the House upon this very important question, and leeling my own unfitness to deal with it from a constitutional oi- legal point of view, I should not have presumed to say one word upon the subject, but for one fact. I should have contented myself with giving a silent vote, but for the fact that the evening before last my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Colbyi, in the very admirable and eloquent speech he made to this House, gave utterance to some sentiments with which I could not altogetner agree, and which I consider it my bounden duty, as one of the representatives of the minority, which he also has the honor to represent, to controvert or to attempt to controvert. That hon. gentleman, not without due reason, spoke for the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec — I say not without due reason, considering the distinguished position which he occupies in this House, considering the fact that he has long and honorably represented the County of Staiistetid, considering his high character for candor, for honesty, for intcgiity, for intelligence, and the opportunity he has hud to acquaint himself, nut only with the minds of his constituents upon public questions generally, but with the minds of the people in that part of the Pro- vince — I say considering these things, the hon. gentleman spoke with an assumed tiuthority, and an authority which he had a right to assume. More than that, his words were clothed in such beautiful language, and the sentiments which he uttered were to admirable, that I have no doubt tiiey carried weight with them in this House, as they would in the country at large. With some things with which the member for Stanstead said the night before last, I can cordially agree. I agree with him in his statements that the relations between the two elements of population in the Province of Quebec, have been very cordial and pleasant. They are so still, and I would fain wish them to continue so. I think, perhaps, he painted the picture in somewhat roseate hues ; the ejitire cordiality of which he spoke may not prevail in all parts of the Province, but certainly in the constituency which I have the honor to represent, and I believe in the constituencies known as the Eastern Townships, this cordial and friendly state of feeling prevails. I have the honor to represent a constituency divided almost equally between Protestants and Catholics, and they do not live in separate communities, Protestants in one section and Catholics in another:, but with the exception of the western part of the county, they are very largely intermingled and in close neighborhood, and they are able to live in the friendly and cordial relations of which my hon. friend so eloquently spoke. K I might be per- mitted to say one word of a personal character, I would refer to the fact that although 1 am known, I think, as a good Protestant, I have had the honor to repre- sent that constituency without interruption almost since Confederation, and I have enjoyed the almost unique honor, during that time, of having been elected five times by acclamation, which fact, I think, is a good evidence that the Catholics in my constituency are not governed by sectarian prejudices. I would agree further with my hon. friend from Stanstead that upon the whole the Protestant minority in the Province of Quebec have no reason to complain of their rights being invaded by Ii« " T 1S6 any legislation resulting from the action of the majority in that Province. During two years from 1867 to 1869 I had the honor of representing the county which I now represent, in the Legislature of the Province of Quebec. Certainly during that time nothing transpired, either in the character of legislation or in the utterances of the members of that body, of which the most rigid and sincere Protestant could complain. Since that time until at least very recently, the same state of attairs has continued. But I regret to say that during the last two years events have tran- spired in the Province, perhaps not so much actual legislation on the part of the governing body, but at all events there have been utterances by representative men in that Province, disquieting to Protestants, and a disposition, as ]?rotostants think, to give to the clerical authority an influence and almost a direction in the legis- lation of that Province, which has led to an uneasy feeling on the part of the Pro- testants generally, and a feeling that if they had not already been exposed to some trespass on their rights, there was danger in the future of a violation of some of the principles which they hold dear. They think they have seen in the character of some of the legislation, of some of the proceedings of the loading men of the Pro- vince of Quebec, a disposition, as I said, to give to the clerical power an influence which could only lead to one result and that is a closer union between Church and State than has hitherto existed or ought to exist in a colony of the British Empire. This feeling, I may say, has been intensified by something which has transpired in my own county. Municipal government has been interfered with in the county in which I live, in a manner which gives not only offence to the Protestants residing in that county, but causes them to fear their rights of municipal self- fovernment are in danger of being seriously interfered with. Under the law of the 'rovince of Quebec (at all events in the French speaking counties of the Province) a Eoman Catholic Bishop has the right to erect territory into a parish in contradis- tinction from townships, and in consenuence of that action, municipal division follows. This right was never attempted to be exercised in English speaking Pro- testant counties until very recently. But not very long ago this power was exer- cised in the county which I represent. The parish of St. Anicet was a part, origin- ally, of the township of Godmanchester; it was erected, by ecclesiastical authority, into a parish, and following that, it was constituted a parish by the Legislature of" the Province of Quebec. Until that time, at ell events, this clerical authority that I speak of had not been exercised in the Townships with the result that followed, in that particular instance. But more recently a portion of this parish of St. Anicet was erected into a parish and the electors of that parish, called St. Barbo, proceeded upon the supposition that it had, by the Act, been constituted a separate municipal organisation. They elected their mayor. Their mayor was refused a seat in the county council of the Province. He appealed to the courts, and his right to sit in that council as the representive of this n ew constituency was sustained by the courts. This fact has given rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction and uneasiness among my constituents at all events. So far as I can learn, that power has not been exercised in the Eastern Township counties proper, but, in every instance where an ecclesias- tical parish has been erected in a Township an Act of the Legislature of Quebec has been secured to constitute it into a municipal parish. And then we cannot conceal from ourselves that, during the past two or three years, there have been utterances on the part of some of the public men in the Province of Quebec, which were not in the direction of supporting the rights of the minority, and which we were of a cha- racter to lead them to feel a great deal of uneasiness ; utterances of this kind have been made over and over again which have led the Protestants of these counties, at all events of my county (and I think the same is true, though not to so great an extent, perhaps, of the other townships and counties), to entertain feelings of uneasiness and disquiet. And following upon this has been the legislation which wo have been considering during two or three days past. There is a general feeling; an almost universal feeling, on the part of the Protestants I represent that this legis- 157 ). During y which I uring that terancos of ;ant could aft'aii's has lave tran- art of tbo tativo men ants think", the legis- r the Pro- od to some omo of tho aracter of r the Pro- , influence hurch and 3h ]i]mpire. nspirod in he county *roto8tantH cipal self- law of the Province) contradis- il division iking Pro- was exer- irt, origin- authority, islature of ority that llowed, in 3t. Anicet proceeded municipal oat in the to sit in the courts. ,mong my exercised ecclesias- •uebec has ot conceal utterances ere not in of a cha- kind have ^unties, at ) great an ■eelings of which wo al feeling, t this legis- lation is not only unwise, not only in some of its features exceedingly offensive to their feelings as Protestants, but that it is for several causes, which have boon set forth hy those who have discussed the question and which I need not therefore repeat, unconstitutional. It is true, as the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) said, that remonstrances against this legislation were not sent to the Legislature of Quobeo at the time the Bill was under discussion. But it is to be remembered, that large bodies proverbially move slowly. The Bill was introduced rather suddenly and cai-riod through tho House very quickly, and there was hardly time for anything like united action. Indeed the people seemed not to have awakened to the character and possible results of the legislation until some-time after it became law. But my hon. friend was mistaken in saying no remonstrance against this legislation hud been made to the authorities here or to tho authorities of the Province of Quebec. Mr. COLBY. I did not say that ; I think 1 did not intend (o say that. My statement was simply this, and if you will allow me I will take the opportunity to interject a remark The resolution which was read by the hon. gentleman just now from the Ministerial Association of Montreal put into my mouth words I never said, and passes strictures upon some eatings which they suppose I uttered. I ma<■ • tlemon that lal Act on iibstanoo of treatment dolivcrod which I do appropri- 3 statement eading tho been given pur])0SGs. brought and the at I fool material ationalities this prin- ■ of Justice 159 in his statoniont witli regard to iluit L certainly foel callod upon to vote for tho mo< tion now bcl'uro tlio House. I regret, as I say, the religious aspect that tJiis disous- sion has taken. I feel that it i*, nnt<)rtunato because tliroughoufc this country, for many years at least, wo liavo had very little experience of roligiouH cries or ditto- roncos. In the section of tho country in which 1 live, the Jtoman Catholics, Presby- terians, Episcopalians, and members of all religious denominations, live together in tho greatest harmony. I do not see why this asfject of tho question should bo introduced here. It would mai^y no dillerence to me, if this grant of money liad boon to an Episconalian, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist body, [ would fell compelled to take the same position on ii. if it was brought heforo the House. It is not bocauso tho tuonoy is granted by tho local (jrovornmont to tho Catholic Church that I object, but it is against tho principle of granting money for any sectarian pur- poses that I wish to protest. That is the ci;iof and almost the only reason why 1 cannot support the Grovernraont, but have to support tho resolution of the hon. member for .>[u8koka (Mr. O'Brien). Mr. McMULLKX, (■\Vellinoton, N. Kidino). It was not my intention to address the House, but 1 have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion so far as it has gone, and 1 may say that I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. member from North Vork (Mr. Mulock). I regret exceedingly that the discussion has partaktjn of a character which is likely to cause verv serious division between two great classes in tho Dominion. Uad tho motion of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) been one that did not embody objecti- onable features from a Itoforra standpoint, I would have much preferred it. In tho shape it is in now it is undoubtedly objectionable to those who sit upon this side of the House. As far as I am personally concerned I am just a« strongly opposed to some of the doctrinal views of the Jesuit Order as any man that sits within this Chamber. I have no sympathy for them owing to their traditional record, which I believe is not very good. At tho same time, Mr. Speaker, we live under a written constitution in this Dominion, and while I have sat and listened with a gootl deal of attention to the arguments that have been presented on both sides, I have failed to that it haa been clearly proved to tho satisfaction of my mind that the Bill which w^ have under consideration is unconstitutional. Of course I am not a lawyer, I am but a layman ; but when I consider that I have on one side the hon the First Minister who, I have reason to believe, says that this Act is constitutional, that we have tho Minister of Justice who declares that it is constitutional, and that wo have alno other legal gentlemen supporting the Government who have declared that it is constitu- tional ; — I come to my own side of the House, and I find that I have the hon. tho leader of the Opposition who, I believe, says that the Bill is a constitutional Bill, and within the power of tho Province of Quebec to pass, I also havo the ex-leader of the Keform Party who says ho believes it is a constitutional Bill (I believe ho is of that opinion), and I think I am correct in saying that tho hon. the leader of tho former Government, tho member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie), is prepared to say it is a constitutional Bill. I also have the statement of the hon. member for Both- well (Mr. Mills) who declares that the Bill is a constitutional Bill and within tho powers of the Provincial Govornmont to pass ; I havo tho opinion of the hon. member for St. John (Mi-. Weldon) a man of extended experience and a cultured legal mind who says the Bill is constitutional, and I think that I am also correct in stating that the hon. member for Queen's (Mr. Davios) considers it a constitutional Bill. I find all these legal gentlemen who have seats in this House, some of tho best legal minds this Dominion contains, saying on the one hand that this is a constitutional Biil within the powers of tho Legislature of Quebec, and, 'on tho other hand, 1 find tho hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy/ saying that it is not [a constitutional Bill. But when I look over the legal history of that hon. gentleman I find that in almost every case in which he has argued upon constitutional principles ho has ICO failed, and I am bound to accept the opinions of the men wlio say if. is within the powers of the Legislature of Quebec to pass that Act. Now, as I said, I have no sympatliy with the Jesuits, but at the same time, if tlie Legislature of Quebec has the right and the power to pass that Bill, I claim to be a loyal British subject, I c aim to liv "nder the written constitution that we have got, which permits the passage of an Act by the Local Legislature, even if it is an objectionable Act. I am perfectly Avilling to agitate for a revision of our Constitution, so that it would not permit the passage of Acts of that kind, but that is the only constitutional way to go to work. With regard to the effects of disallowance I agree heartily with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock), I can easily sec that if the Government were ibrced to reconsider their Order in Council allowing the Bill we would not then reach the end of the trouble. The probabilities are that the Legislature of Quebec, if they are acting within their constitutional rights, would re-enact the Bill next year. Arc we to have all this agitation again next year ? Are Ave to meet and have the important time of this House spent in discussing whetlier the next Bill is within the power of the Quebec Legislature, or whether we should disallow it or not? I think it is better, under the circumstances, that we should settle this question as quickly as pr^ssiblp, and I believe the best and the constitutional way of settling it is to relegate the whole n ivostion to the courts, and let them decide whether the Act is constitutional or not. Some saj' there may he a difficulty whatever in doing so. I nndei'stand that the Mail new-paper of Toronto has had an action brought against it by the Jesuit Order for certain statements which it has made with regard to that order t^ ere. The Mail neAva-paper, if it chooses, can carry that action to the Privy Council in England ; it can force the Jesuit Order there antl test the whole question ip. that very action. I must say I sympathise a great deal with its course myself; I a'n just as strong an advocate of religions liberty as any other member in this House ; and if it is found that the Act is unconstitutional, that is an end of the whole difficulty. If che hon. member for North Simcoe, who is a man of extended legal knowledge, Avill show rae that we can reach the object of our ambition in disallow- ing this Bill by the course he proposes to take in this House, I would not hesitate a moment to support him ; hv j I cannot see that we car reach that point, becaiiso disallowance no y means re-enacting in the Province of Quebec, which would bring disallowance again, and where would that stop ? Are we to go with this, like the Streams Bill, which was enacted and disallowed, enacted and dissallowed, enacted and dissallowed, three times. The result was that it had to go to the Supremo Court before it was settled after all. This is a question which would cause a trem- endous amount of trouble in this coun'i^ry if it wore carried on in that way. I must say, although I have no confidence in the Government — I s.ay, in the interest of the country, not in the interest of the Government at all — the best course is to sent this Bill whore it wi)! receive judicious handling at the hands of the Privy Council, which will settle the Avhole question at once, and relievo this House year after year from the discussion of a question, which is certainly a ver}'' awkward one for the House to deal with, and Avhich we should not bo called on to deal with. We make laws in this House , we do not administer them. This law has been made in the Province of Quebec ; and if it is within the constitutional rights of that Province, much as \.e may deplore its results and its pecular characteristics, it is not for us to say that the Province shall not havp it. It it improperly imports the name of tho Pope into this provincial exactment, or if anything else in it makes it unconstitu- tional, the courts will decide, and will rid the House of the question, and settle all the difficulty in the country. Under these circumstances, I shall not vote for tho amendment of the hon. member for Muskoka unless before this debate is closed I can be convinced that by passing that motion Ave avIU b<- settling the whole difficulty. If I cannot be convinced of that, I cannot take the responsibility of Avhat I see Avill inevitably follow, a condition of things such as has been pointed out by the hon. member for North York, and also by myself. 161 thin the have no )])ec has ibject, I mits the ;t. I am juld not my to go the hon, ernmont . not then Quebec, Bill next and havo is within not? I estion as tling it is ho Act is ng 80. I t against 'dto that the Privy question myself; I V in tliis the whole ded legal disallow- hesitate a , because luld bring like the enacted Supremo a trom- I must est of the sent this Council, ftcr year for the We make in the Province, for us to ae of the iconstitu- sottle all for the closed I difficulty, see will the hon. Mr. LAURIER, (Quebec, East.) Mr. Speaker, it is not often that wo on this side of the House can have the privil- ege oi' supporting the policy of the Government.' In this instance, when the action of the Government is assailed by a number of their supporters, when their action has already caused an agitation which unfoi-tunately is not unmixed with religious bitter- ness, not one word certainly will fall from my lips which would tend to fan those religious flames ; and I may say fit once, repeating what was said this afternoon by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills), in the admirable speech he delivered, that the coui'se of the Government receives, with a few exceptions which I respect, the entire support of the Liberal part}'. No other course, Mr. Speaker, than the course which we intend to take on this side of the House, would be consistent with the policy which we have been advocating for the last fifteen or twenty years — nay, ever since Confederation has been in existence. And, Sir, 1 hasten at once to con- gratulate the Government upon the fact that at last they have come to the true policy which they have often fought against, that the only basis upon which we can b' ccessfuUy carry on this Confederation is to recognize the principle of provincial rights. And I cannot but sa}' also that if the Government to-day have to face this trouble in their own camp, if they havo to meet this agitation which is now going on in the Province of Ontario, and of which the hon. member for North Simcoo (Mr. McCarthy) said yesterday, we have not seen the last, it is due altogether to the vicious policy which has been followed by the Administration, and before the consequences of which they have at last to recede ; it is due altogether to the manner in which they have governed this country, and to the means they have useil to obtain a major- ity to support them. Sir, this is not a party question ; it is at most a family quarrel ; it is simply a domestic disturbance in the ranks of the Conservative party. A section of the Conservative party now required the Government to stand up or to stand down, whichever it may be, to the exigencies of the doctrine of disallowance, such as the Government has taught it, and such as the Government more than once called upon them to act upon. Well, there must always be a day of retribution, and that aay I think is coming for the Government. The two chief Provinces of which this Confederation is composed are vastly dissimilar. One is French in origin; the other British. One is Catholic in religion ; the other is Protestant. And in each are to be found the prejudices peculiar to the creed and race of each. I say prejudices, and I use the word advisedly, nor do I use it in any contemptuous sense, for everybody must recognize the fact that wherever you find strong convictions, you generally find an exaggeration of fooling vary apt to carry men beyond the legitimate conse- quence of their convictions. Now, ever since the year 1854, I charge against the Government and against the Conservative party that they havo been able to retain power, almost without interruption, largely by pandering to the prejudices of the one Province and the prejudices of the other Province. In the good Catholic Pro- vince of Quebec, to wliicii I belong, the party supporting the Administration have always represented themselves as the champions of the Roman Catholic cause. They have always denounced their opponents, ihc Liberals of French origin like myself, as men of dangerous doctrine and tendencies. Tli'^- havo always represented the Liberals of Ontario as men actuated in all their actions and inspirations by a hatred of everything French and Catholic. At the same lime, in the good Protestant Pro- vince of Ontario, the same party has always been hold up to the front as the party of unbending and uncompromising Protestantism and the Conservative press to-day represent hon. gentlemen on this side as basely pandering to the influence of the French people and of the Catholic persuasion. Now this game has been for a long time successful, but, perhaps, before going further, I may recall this fact, known by all those who are now listening to me, that the attitude of the Consorvativo party of Ontario has always been just what I represent it lo bo. It may not be so well known tjiat, at the same time, the Liberals of Ontario are charged by the Conservatives of g^ 1G2 tho Province of Quebec, not with panderinjr to the Catholic influence but with being hostile to Catholic intii encc — and so the cliarges work both ways. In one Province the Liberals are charged with one offence, and in tlie other with another. I could quote columns upon columns of the press which supports the right hon. gentleman to prove what I say, but I shall limit myself to one short paragraph. The school question in Ontario is a burning question. Tho hon. member for Bruce (Mr. McNeil) yesterday spoke almost of nothing else. A few days ago there was in the Legislature of Ontario a debate upon this very question. The Government of Mr. Mowat were charged by the Conservative party with unduly favoring the teaching of the French language in the schools of Ontario. Tho debate wan commented upon in the Pro- vince of Quebec, La Minerve, one of the papere which support tho Administration, an organ of the Conservative party, referred as follows to this very debate : — " The motion or tho hon. member for East Durliam (Mr. Craig) was followeil iiy a most bril- liant reply strongly conceived, broad in view and conclusive from tlie IIuii. G. W. Uoss, Minister of Public Inslruclioii. Mr. Ross is a Grit of tlie clearest water, ijiit wo ai'o too much accustomed to llie gallopiiobic denunciation of that party and to the ii)leni|)eran(e of Ihoir language, wlien the Province of Quebec is in question, not to rejoice at anythinj,' which remotely or approximately can look like a conversion. You see the gist of this statement. It was charged that the language of Mr. Ross was an exception whereas the charge made by the Consei'vative party in Ontario against the Administration for which Mr. Ross spoke, was the very thing which is given him hero as an exception. So it has always been. Tho party has always had two faces— a rigid Protestant face turning towards tho west, and a devout Catholic face turning towards the east. In the Province of Ontario, tho rallying cry of the party has always been : "■ Protestants, beware ! these Grits are weak Protestants ! " Some hon. MEMBERS. No, never. Mr. LAURIEIt. Among the Pi-otestants of Quebec, their cry has always been : " Catholics, beware, tlio Liberals are weak and bad Catholics!" This game has been successfYil for a long time, but it cannot always be successful, and I say the day of retribution is now coming. I say that this motion which we now have is in many senses much to be deprecated, and I endorse every word which fell the other day from the hon. member tor Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell). It seems to me that all he said then were words of wisdom, but at tho saino time I cannot resist tho conviction that tho Goveniment of to-day are only reaping what they have been sowing. They have allowed a large class of the Protestant population of Ontario to look upon them ;i8 the champions of Protestantism. They have affirmed thedoctrine of disallowance among that section of the party and now that section cries out : We have always lookeast. Well, as far as the Liberal party is concerned, their attitude upon this question was known before it was explained in this debate. The Liberal party always endeavors to meet those questions, not from tho point of view that would include all different religious interests. Among the many ques- tions which divided the two parties, there is no one upon which tho policy of the two parties has been so clearly cut as upon this. The Conservative party, led by tho right hon. gentleman, have always held the doctrine that they have the right to review tho legislation of any Local Legislature. We, on tho other hand, have always pretended that the only way to carry out this Confederation is to admit tho principle that within its sphere, within the sphere allotted to it by the Constitution, each Province is quite as independent of the control of the Dominion Parliament, as tho Dominion Parliament is independent of tho control of the Local Legislatures, 163 On the contrary, the hon. gentleman has maintained again and again upon the floor of this House and by administrative acts that he chiimed the power to review local legislation, to see whether it was right or wrong, and, if he found it clashing with his ideas of right, to set it aside. "We all remember the famous Streams Bill. What was the language used on that occasion by the hon, gentleman ? He claimed that it was a question of purely provincial character, that it was one which was cleai-ly within the competence of the Legislature of Ontario, and yet the hon. geniieman took it upon himself to disallow it, and for what reason ? For no other reason than that the Act clashed with his own opinions of what was right and what was wrong ? He spoke as follows in regard to it : " But here, where we are one country and nil toprether, and we go from one Province to another as we do from one country to another and from one town to another, it is to be borne that laws which bmd . '-/ilised society together, which distinguish civilisation from bari)arism, protect life, reputation and property, should be dissimilar ; that what should bo a merit in one Province should be a crime in another, and that dillerent laws should prevail." Upon that occasion the hon. gentleman took upon himself to review the law of the Province, and, finding it was not consistent with what he believed to bo right, ho disallowed it. It chocked the tenderness of the right hon. gentleman's conscience that the Legislature of Ontario pi'ovided that Mr. Caldwell could not pass his logs through Mr, McLaren's improvements Avithout paying toll, though the Privy Council aftenvards decided that, without the law, Mr. Caldwell could have use those impro- vements without paying any tolls at all. The hon, gentleman now comes to the doctrine which has been very many times advocated on this side of the House, that he has not to consider whether this provincial legislation is good, bad or indifferent ; it is altogether within the competence of the Local Legislature of Quebec, and there- fore, says he, let it pass. Let us read the report of the Minister of Justice of the day on the Streams Bill and compare it with the report of the Minister of Justice upon the present occasion. The Minister of Justice then said : " I think the power of the Local Legislature to lake away the rights of one man and vest them in another as is done l)y this Act, is exceedingly doubtful, but, assuming that such right does, in strictness, exist, I think it devolves upon this Govermm-nt to see that such power is not exercised, in llngrant violation of private rights and natural justice, especially when, as in this case, in addition to interfering with private rights in the way alluded to, the Act overrides a decision ol a court of competent jurisdiction, by declaring retrospectively that the law always was, and is, dilferent from that laid down by the court." IS Now, let u8 look at the report of the Minister of Justice in the present case. It extremely short and sweet. The Minister of Justice simply says, referring to some petitions asking for disallowance : " Before the petition in question cami' before him for his consideration the undersigned had already recommended to Your Excellency, that the Act in question should be left to its operation. The memorials referred to have not convinced the undersigned that that recommendation should be changed. The subject-matter of the Act is one of provincial coucern only, having relation to a liscal matter entirely within the control of the Legislature of Quebec. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is sound Liberal doctrine. This is the very doctrine which has been always maintained and supported on this side of the House, and once more I beg to tender my thanks and ray congratulations to the hon, gentleman on having at last come to the true and only bjisis upon which this constitution of ours can be satisfactorily maintained and supported. It takes a long time, however, for a true principle to penetrate the perverted minds, jib 1 might say, of the hon, gentlemen opposite. No, I beg their pardon, it does not always take so long a time ; some- rW^ 1C4 times the operation is an fast as at others it is slow. Only three weeks ago, wo tend- ered advice to the Administration as to the manner in which they should treat our friends to the South in reference to the modus vivendi. Our advice was treated with contempt, and it was stated by hon. gentlemen opposite that the proposal would bo received with scorn by the people of this country ; and yet, within three weeks, they have changed their minds and accepted the policy which we suggested. I can only say that, as long as the Administration continue to act in that way, first lo reject the policy of the Opposition and then to steal our clolhcc and dress themselves in them, the country would not be the loser. I had hesitated, before I resolved to speak on his question, whether I should confine myself to this statement and then sit down, but I cannot ignore, no one who has at heart the interests of this country, the peace and harmony of this country, can ignore the agitation which is now going on in the Province of Ontario. Coming as I do, from vhe Province of Quebec, being a member of the Catholic persuasion and a supporter of the Government which passeti this legislation, I cannot but view with d iep concern the attempt which is now being made to arouse our Protestants foUow-ciiizens in tho Province of Ontario against that legislation. Lot me say this, which must be obvious to every hon. member, that, if we approach this question, or any que8t:"T, from the point of view of the religious opinions which any of us profess, we arc apt to stand upon very narrow, very unsafe, and very dangerous ground. I say dangerous ground because it is a matter of his- tory, that it is always in the sacred name of religion that the most savage passions of mankind have been excited and some of the most shocking crimes have been com- mitted. In this matter, I cannot forget tho fact, as 1 have stated that an attempt has been made to arouse the feelings of the Province of Ontario, but I hope that that attempt will not carry, and that a better sentiment will prevail ; I hope that the temperate language of which we have hoard to-day, will be imderstooil, and, though this legislation may be objectionable to some people, yet that every one will under- stand that in these subjects we must make allowance for the feelings of others. What is the cause of the agitation which is now going on ? What is the cause of the legis- lation which has been the source of so much turmoil ? Sir, it is simply this : It is a matter of regret that the European nations, P'rance and England, when they came to this continent brought with them not only their laws and institutions, not only their civilisation, but brought also their hatreds. At this moment, and for more thaH seventy years past, France and England have been at peace, and it has given to our generation to witness a spectacle which would have seemed almost impro- bable, not to say impossible, a few years before. We have seen France and Englanil arrayed together against a common foe ; and to us British subjects of French origin, British subjects who have learned to love England, who ;ij)preciate her benevolent rule, who would not go back to the allegiance of France, but who still ever cher- ish in our hearts the love of the land of our ancestors, no spectacle could be more consoling than to see the banners of France and P]ngland waving together on the banks of the Alma, on the heights of Inkermann and amid the ashes of Sebastopool. Such is the case to-<:lay. Such was not the case, however, at the time of the discovery of America at the time of tho establishment of English and French posts upon this continent. On tho contrary, at that time French and English had been arrayed tor generations and centuries in deadly feuds. They brought over these feuds with them, they brought t)ver with them the enmity which had divided them in Kurope,and here on this continent they sought each other across lakes and rivers,mountains and forests, and endeavored to inflict upon each other all the injury they possibly could. They had before them the boundless space of this virgin continent, but they entered into a deadly war for the possession of the miserable huts which constituted their first establishments. Well, the long duel, as we know, was settled on the plains of Abra- ham. The wa", however, was carried on for a year longer by the Chevalier de L^vin, and the continuition of the war had no material efiect except to extract from the victor most generous terms of capitulation. These terms have been referred to, i 165 we tend- reat our ited with would bo iks, they can only lo reject iselves in olved to and then country, low going )ec, being ch passed low being ainst that I-, that, il' religious ry unsafe, H- of his- 5 passions been com- n attempt 5 that that that the id, though ill under- ors. What ' the legis- is : It is a hey camo (, not only for more has given ost impro- 1 England ich origin, )enevolenL ever cher- be more ler on the bastopool. discovery upon this rrayed tor vith them, e,and here nd forests, d. They teretl into their first s of Abra- de L^vis, from the rred to, L need not refer to them again. The religious communities were granted all their possessions as freely as if they had remained under the domain of the French King. It was stated by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) when he opened this debate, that the Terms of Capitulation had been modified by the Treaty of Paris. For my part I am not able to see the ditt'erence, but if difference there be, I am quite willing to admit the interpretation of it which was given by the British (iovernment itself. Eespecting the treatment by the British Government of those communitieo which were promised special immunity, I can see no difference between their posi- tion under the French regime and their condition under the English regime. The British Government treated those communities and the whole population, for that matter, in religious concerns with the greatest generosity. All thu generous commu- nities, with the single exception of the Jesuits, were maintained in possession of their estates. There was an exception made of the Jesuits. What was the cause of it ? Was it by the right of Conquest as asserted by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy ). Mr. McCAETHY. Will the hon. gentleman excuse me. I did not make that assertion. Tt was by the introduction of the law at the Conquest, not by virtue of the Conquest at all — the introduction of the English law whereby the estates became forfeited to the Crown. Mr. LAURIER So be it; I accept the correction. I do not intend to discuss the legal aspects of the question, because, in my judgment, the legal aspect does not come liere. But even if, as stated by the hon. gentleman, the British Government took possession of these estates by virtue of the introduction of the English law into this country, still that might have applied as well to the other communities as to the Jesuit estates. Why was that exception made ? Why were these other religious communities maintained in possession of their estates, and the Jesuits excepted ? I think that the Minister of Justice yesterdy gave the real key of the difficulty when he stated that it was the covetousness of Lord Amherst, who, in 1770, obtained from the King an actual promise of the grant of these estates. Had it not been afterwards for the abolition of the order by the Pope, I firmly believe the Jesuits would have continued in the enjoyment of their estates in the same manner as the other religious communities. But the order was abolished, and after the last Jesuit had departed this life the British Government took possession of the estates. Then, as we know, the heirs of Lord Amherst claimed these estates in virtue of the promise which had been made in 1*770 by the King. But the protests were so strong, not only from the old inhabitants but from the new inhabitants as well, not only from the old subjects of the King, but from the new subjects of the King, that the Government could not carry out its intentions of making a grant of these estates to the heirs of Lord Amherst. On the other hand, though the Government had taken possession of these estates, and though they were promised to General Amherst, the Government could not put them into the general fund, and they erected into a special fund. But there is this to be remembered, whether the laws of England were introduced into the colony or not, whether the old laws continued to be in force or not, the old French laws con- tinued to prevail in the country just as before. And there is this also to be remem- bered, that under the laws of Quebec as they existed under the French regime, pro- perty of the nature of the Jesuits estates, when the order had been abolished, would have reverted to the Ordinary of the Diocese, property of that kind would have gone to the Bishop of Quebec or to the Bishop of Montreal. Such was the contention of the church at that time, and from that day up to this, the ecclesiastical authorities of the Province of Quebec have never ceased to claim that property as rightly belong- ing to them. There has been a continuation of the protests from that moment to the present. Protests were made in these dates : ^ '1 166 " 1. 4tli February, 1793, by the citizens of Quebec. 2. I8lli November, 1799, by His Grace Jean Francois Hubert, Hisliop of Quebec. 3. About the year 1835, by His Grace Joseph Signay Bishop of Quebec; His Grace Pierre Fiavien Turgeoii, Bishop of Sydimo, Coadjutor of Quebec ; His Grace Jean Jacques Larligue, Bishop Tdmasse, Grand Vicar of t!ie district of Montreal. 4. January, 1845, by Hi;; Grace Joseph Signay Archbishop of Quebec, and by the Bishops of Montreal, Kingston and I'oronto. 5. June, 1847, by the clergy of the dioceses of Montreal and Quebec. 6. January, 1874, by the Rev. Father Theophile Chavaux, Superior General of the Jesuits' Mission in Canada. 7. 9lli October, 1878, by the Archbishop of Quebec and Bishops of Tlu'oe Hivers, Hiiuouski, Montreal, Shprbrooke, Ottawa, St. Hyacinthe and Chicoutimi. 8. 2nd January, 1885, by the Archbishoj) of Quebec." So you see that from the moment the British Government took possession of these estates, the church authorities of the Province of Quebec never ceased to claim them as their own. Now, could that matter have remained in that condition ? Could it be said in a Catholic country like the Province of Quebec, that such protests would remain unheeded ? Time and again, as you are aware, the Government of Quebec attempted to dispose of these estates and to settle the question. Mr. Mercier is not the first man in office who attempted to deal with this question. Time and again his predecessors attempted to do the same thing. There was a reason for that. Those estates are valued to-day by Mr. Eivard, superintendent of the estates, at the sum of $1,200,000. They yield a revenue of only $22,000, less than 2 per cent. Some of the property is without any annual value. Take for instance, the old college of the Jesuits in Quebec, right to the centre of the city, opposite the Basilica. That property to-day does not give one cent of revenue, on the contrary it is a burden upon the Exchequer of the Province, whereas, were the property disposed of it would sell to advantage. Time and time again, the Government of Quebec have attempted to dispose of it, but every time the Government placed it in the market, the religious authorities came forward and claimed the property as their own, and render^ the attempts at sale abortive, Was that forever to remain thus ? The question was opened more than once. M. DeBoucherville, in 1878 endeavored to enter into negotiations to settle the case with the religious authorities of the Pro- vince. He did not succeed. It has been asserted many times in the press, though the fact has never been stated officially, that Mr, Chaplcau, when in office, entered into negotiations with the religious authorities, and went so far as to olFer $500,000 for the removal of the claims of the religious authorities on these estates. Of this I do not know the exact truth. I can only speak from the rumors published in the press. But it is quite certain that Mr. Ross, who succeeded him as Premier a few years afterwards, entered into negotiations for the settlement of the estates. Nothing came of the negotiations, and why ? Because it required some courage to deal with the question and to settle it, because it was certain that whoever dealt with it, would have to face much prejudice, as those events have proved. Mr. Mercier had the courage to grapple with this question and to settle it, and if nothing else in the cai-eer of Mr. Mercier remained to stamp him as a statesman, there would be this, that he had the courage to deal with this question, and this would give him that title. The question, I think, had to be settled. In what manner was it settled ? It was settled just in the manner which was most fair to all : it was settled by compro- mise. Mr. Mercier in eft'ect said to the religious authorities : I hold these estates as the representative of the Crown ; the right belongs to the Province of Quebec : our title to them is legal ; I do not admit that you have a legal title to them, while on the other hand you pretend you have a legal title. Be that as it may, he said, let us make a sacritice each of our pretensions ; I hold the property and the whole of the estates, and you claim the whole of them; let us compromise, and ^etus settle the question forever. Now, I ask every man in this House, no matter what his prejudice may be, I ask the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) himself, in whose fairness I have the greatest confidence, was there ever a more fair method adopted of disposing of a public question than that which was adopted in this case ? 167 Of course, it is quite easy for the editor in his easy chair, it is quite easy for the publisher in his office, it is quite easy for the clergyman in hie study to settle questions according to fixed theories, but the public man in office or in Opposition cannot settle a question according to fixed theories, but he has to consult the wishes, not only the wishes, aye, but the passions and the prejudices of the people with whom he has to deal. And, in a country like the Province of Quebec where there are more than 1,000,000 of Catholic inhabitants, with a regularly conHtitutcd hierarchy, with such i\ claim as the Catholic ecclesias- tical authorities could present, was it to be said that this question should ever remain open and these lands never be disposed of for the advantage of the exchequer of the Province ? It seems to me that upon that question I can appeal again with confidence to the testimony of all those who will approach the question with an unbiassed mind. After all, Mr. Speaker, there is but one way which has boon invented yet to govern men satisfactorily, and it is to govern them according to the wishes which are expressed by public opinion. I do not moan to say that public opinion is always right, the public opinion always comes up to the standard of eternal justice or truth ; I do not mean to say that public opinion always comes up to the standard of wordly wisdom, but if you govern the people according to public opinion you are sure to have peace and harmony in the land and when this question was set led it was settled according to the wishes of the public opinion in the Province of Quebec and by so doing you have peace and harmony in the latid. Now, if you are to attempt to over- ride the well knowft wishes of the population of the Province of Quebec, instead of harmony and peace, you will have probably discord, the consequences of which I would fear to look at. Such is the reason why this question has been settled in the manner in which it has been settled. But it has been insisted by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and by some othe:- *^on. members also that this legislation was offen- sive from a Protestant point of view. AYell, strange to say, the Pi-otestant minority is represented in the Le^^islature of the Province of Quebec. They have, if I remem- ber rightly, some 12 members of the Protestant persuasion in the Provincial Legisla- ture When this question came to be discussed two members only protested, and they protested very mildly. And they protested against what ? Only against one single feature of the Act, against the fact that the name of His Holiness the Pope appeared in the preamble of the Act. Mr. Mercier gave them at that moment the very answer (juoted yesterday by the Minister of Justice, and he told them : If you do not want the name of the Pope in this matter, you will suggest the name of any one to put in his place. It was a compromise with the religious authorities of the Province of Quebec, and I think Mr. Mercier acted fairly and pi-udently in dealing direct with the head of the Roman Catholic church. His arguments were so con- vincing that those objections Avere not pressed, the Act passed unanimously, and Mr, Mercier was enabled to speak in the following terms of the attitude of hie Protest- ant colleagues : — " I tliank the Prolestaiit members for the moderation with which they have discuascil this question. It is a good omen. The unanimity whicli now prevails is a proof that the dilFereul races of which our population is composed, has lived in peace and liarmony and approaches the most delicate question with that spirit of conciliation wiiich accomplished wonders when it is properly directed." Well, this legislation is not satisfactory to our Protestant friends, or to some of them at least from Ontario. Still if th ) Protestants of Quebec are satisfied, who can object? I understood that it was sa i a moment ago by the hon, member for Hun- tingdon (Mr. Scriver), that the Protestants of Quebec are n )t all satisfied. They may not all be satisfied indeed. It is very seldom that upon any question that may come up men of the same creed, of the same race, will be entirely satisfied ; but if any- body has a right to speak for the Protestant minority of the Province of Quebec, are they not those who are elected by the people of that Province to represent them ¥ 168 in the Legislature, and if these do not choose to make any representation, if those on the contrary say that after all this question has been settled and approved, no one else has the right to complain. But the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), it appears has no confidence in those who represent his fellow contryraen in the Pro- vince of Quebec. If I am to believe what he said yesterday, ho has but a poor opinion of those who have been entrusted by his fellow religionists in the Province to take charge of their interests in the Legislature. These were his words yes- terday : " Doos lliis look as if the Protestants of tlio Province of Quebec were desirous, and willing;, and anxious that liiis legislation should remain unchanged, or does it not look as if, if tin- Protestant minority in that Province were given reasonahlo encouragement, they would gel. justice — and no more than justice are they entitled to, and no more than justice 1 hope they will ever ask for — from the Parliament of this country. Then they will he up and doing, to gel their share of the legislation, hut in the Legislature of that Province, composed as it is now, they cannot expect it. There was no Protestant representative in the Cabinet of that Province unlit recently, and, when one was chosen, ho had to be elected in spile of the vote of the Protestant minority." Now, without going any further, I wish to take issue tipon this point with the lion gentleman from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), when he saj'^s here that Col. Ehodes was not elected in Megantic by the Protestant minority. The County of Megantic is a mixed county. Col. Ehodes, the Minister of Agriculture, was elected two or three months after this Act has been passed, and it was an issue upon which the; electors had to pass. Col. Rhodes polled ihe majority of the French and Catholic votes, but I say tliat Col. Ehodes also polled the majority of the Protestant votes. As to this I do not give my own testimony. I have not yet had an occasion to look at the figures. But I give the testimony of Col. Ehodes himself, who, on the day of the election, telegraphed that he had been upheld by the majority of the Pro- testant electors of the County of Megantic. Then the hon. member for North Sim- coe (Mr. McCarthy) goes on to say : " I can understand tliat, if there were a lighting man in thai House like Ihe lion, member who leads the third parly here, there might be a chance of obtaining soiiielliing like justice, but men with that skill and ability, villi parlianusnlary kno'vli'ilgo to back it, are not to be found every day, and we are nut lo judge the rrolestant t'ejiresenlalives of the I'rovince of Quebec on that high standard." And why not, Mr, Speaker, " of that high standard ? " Can it be that the Protestant.- of the Province of Quebec, who have placed themselves at the head of the trade ol .the country, still are so backward in this respect that they cannot send to the Legis- lature a man of standing to represent them ? Can it be that the Protestants of the Province of Quebec have to be taken under the fo.steringcare of my hon. friend from Simcoe? Can it be that they cannot manage their own affairs ? Can it be they cannot look after their own interests ? I have more confidence than my hon. friend in the ability of the I^rotestant representatives in the Province of Quebec, because I happen to know they are men of merit, men of ability, and some of the greatest ability. But, Mr. Speaker, if that is the opinion which the hon. gentleman entertains of his own countrymen and co-religionists in the Province of Quebec ; if he believes that they are not able to take care of their own interests, but that the Protestants o\ other Provinces must come to their rescue, perhaps he would be interested to know what is the opinion which is entertained by some of the Protestants of Quebec ol those too zealous Protestants of the Province of Ontario wlio want to take up the cudgels on their behalf. I hold in my hand an extract from a paper published in the Eastern Townships, the Waterloo Advertiser, edited by a disciple and a life-long friend of the late Mr, Huntington, as good and as strong a Protestant as ever lived. This is how the paper speaks : 169 " Kvery patriotic Cuiiadiiiii must dojiloro tin) iiitempcialo (iiscnssion that lias hooii provoliod by the ilcsuils' Hill. Tlio mcasuro has hecoiiio law, and no amount CDntroviTsey can alter the fad. It is altogothor the domeslie concern of the I'rovince ol' (Juehee, and any oulside interl'erenno is simply me(hlli>somo ami impertinent. The pi'rsons and the Orangemen of Ontario have joined Jiands to make war on the Outholics of Quebec. The Lejjislature has settled the old dispute over the .Jesuits' estates in a manner satisfactory to the people. A source of irritation and discontent has l)oea removed once for all. The Jesuits' Bill passed the Legislature, practically, without ii dissenting voice. I'lie chosen representatives of the I'mteslant minority accepted it as a fair settlement of a ve.xed question. The basis of settlement called lor an expenditure of public funds, and to obviate any possibilit\' of jalousy on the i)art of the Protestant minority a proportionate sum was at the same time voted for I'rotestant education. Tlial was fair and just and it was so understood by the minority. The i'rotestant minority in this Province is rpiite al)le to take earo of itself. In the purely domestic concerns of the Province it asks no assistan(;e and expects no sympathy from outsiders. Taking it all in all, the minority has been fairly treated by the majority. There may have been friction at limes, l)ut there has not been in the history of llie Province an instance in which the powers of the majority have been used to crush or injure the minority. If the Catholics and Protestants are able to get along together peaceably, why should Ontario interfere? The Protestants minority as a whole has not and does not complain of the Jesuits settlement. It is recognized by broad-minded and patriotic men as being the best thing thai could have been done under the circumstances." Such, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion entertained in the Eastern Townsliips at least l»y one section of the people. Now, my hon. friend from Huntingdon iMr. Scriver) a moment ago referred to the treatment of the minority in the Province of Quebec. I have the greatest respect as my friend knows for everything which he utters, and I am sure he will agree with me in one thing — if the Protestant minority in the Pro- vince of Quebec have anything to complain of — and I listened to what might be called the list of grievances which we heard read to-day by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), but if the Protestant minority imvo anything to complain of. l ask : Are they not themselves responsible for it? in all that list of grievances which were read is there an act of legislation against which they have ever protested ? Have they not always supported the Conservative party which has always been in power, and has not every one of these items in the list which we have heard recited as a grievance, been passed by the Conservative party which the Protestants of Que- bec always supported. Sir, 1 have simply to say this, speaking as a Canadian of French ox'igin, that if my fellow-countrymen of British origin have any grievances, real or imaginary, let them come before the Legislature of Quebec; and although I have not a seat in that Legislature 1 can claim that I have some influence there, nay I do not want any influence, 1 know that the majority of the members in that House, the Conservative minority as well, w^ould be ever i-eady to give them what remedial legislation they may think for their benetil. But up to a few days ago, I never heard that the Protestant minority had anything to complain of in the treatment which they have received from the majority of the Province of Quebec, and if they had any serious grievances, can it be told upon the floor of this Parliament that these grievances would not have been ventilated before the representatives of the people ? I repeat what I said a moment ago. It is quite easy for the editor in his chair, or the clergyman in his study, or for any party who has no responsability to public at large — it is quite easy for them to determine questions by tixed theories, but it is another thing to fix them according to the will of the people, and I do not admit that there is any serious grievance so long as these grievances are not venti- lated upon the floor of the House of the Provincial Parliament. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) also said something yesterday about Mr. Joly. He clai- med that Mr. Joly had been ousted from public life. I do not know by whom, but I suppose he meant by the Liberal party. Mr, MoCABTHY. Hear, hear. Mr. LAURIER. The hon. gentleman says " hear, hear." Mr. Joly has been in power for some eighteen months and he was ousted from power by the most dis- 170 honest warl'uro wl»ich every public man had to suft'er in thifl country. Mr. Joly was ousted from power largely by a violation of the Constitution, perpetrate! by this Parliament, and in which thohon. member for Simcoo was himself instrumental. If Mr. Joly had hjvd anything like fair play, I believe liiut to this day he would havo been in power in the Province of Quebec. Mr. Joly never had anything to sutfor at the hands of the Liberal party; on the contrary, Mr. Joly is a man for whom wo have the greatest respect. Wo have differed fVom him upon one question, and one question only, the question which arose out of the rebellion in the North-Wost. Upon that question Mr. Joly took one course, and wo took a different course. I am not to argue this question over again, but 1 have simply to say this to the hon. mem- ber for Simcoe, that in the last election which took place in Megantic, where a Pro- testant representative of the Cabinet of Mr. Morcior was before the people, and when this veiy question was to be tested at the polls, Mr. Joly came doAvn and sup- ported the candidate and the policy of the Goveruinont. It is evident, Mr. Speaker, from the discussion which we have had in this Parliament since yesterday, that though the Act is objectionable to some people — and I find no fault with tne hon. member for Muskoka, I find no fault with my hon. friend from Simcoe, for holding the views they hold; I would not attribute to thorn other than the motive of con- HCience, that they are doing what they think for the best, thoy are representing what they deem to be in the interest of tlio people at large — but it is manifest to me that their judgment has been considoi'ably biassed by the fact that the name of the Jesuits has boon introduced in that legislation. It seems to me manifest that the appearance of that n;u lie has evoked a fresh outburst of ho.stility which that cele- brated order has been subjected to in many lands and in many ages. Now, it is said that they are dangerous men. Suppose all that has been said were true, would that bo any reason to reftise them the justice to which they are entitled ? Suppose thoy wore dangerous men, as it is represented thoy are ; that might perhaps boa reason to refuse them civi' rights, to refuse the»' -ocognition. But thoy were incor- porated by the Province of Quebec two yoars a^ , and the Act whicli incorporated them reoeived the approval of one of tho: a weak Protostants, according to the mem- ber for .Simcoe, who represent the minority in the Legislature of Quebec. Mr. Lyncl , a fellow Conservative o:' the hon. member for Simcoe, speaking on that occa- sion, used this remarkable language : " Mr. Lyncli, on the Bill to incorporate tlie Jesuits, said that notwithstanding' what might be thought in some quarters, there was nothing in th.' Bill alarming in its character. We were living in an age when wisdom prevailed, living in an age wher 'reedom was supposed to exist the world over, and nowhere the Dominion of Her Majesty did liberty jtrevail more than in the Province of Quebec. In Committee, with a consideration of fairness which characterisc'd members of the House, certain portions of the preamble were struck out Now i*^ it possible that the intelligent public opinion of the Province of Quebec should di'iiy those Jesuit Fathers the civil rights whicli we have granted to everyone else ? B" there is any relii^ious aspect to t' is question it should bo settled elsewhere than in this House. If there is anything in this Bill against civil rights, let us strike it out. Until this is shown I am prepared to support this Bill. " And supported the Bill was, and became law. Under such circumstances, it seems to me that the explosion of bitterness which we have seen to-day and yestorda3' comes rather tardily. But, Sir, any man, be he friend or foe of the Jesuit Order, must at least give them credit for this, that they repel and deny all the charges which are made against them ; they repeal and deny the dangerous doctrines whi, are a body of pure men, and they are eharacteriaod by knowledge and high uttainraenta ; but ihey are men, ibey are fallible, and it would bo atrange indeed if in au h anume- roua order some wore not found to write objectionable thingH. But > appose one of an order were found to write ol'jectionable thing would it follow that the whole order ought to be hold reHponaible, as was said by one member ? So are you to con- clude that, because ono ^the order happens to write objectionable things, the whole order are to be condemned ? It would be just as if ym were to condemn ail the Protestant divines of Ontario be»ause the Kev. Dr Wild said, a few daya ago, that to kill a Jesuit was no crime. I will not, Mr. Speaker, push this controveray any far- ther. This is not the place, 1 say, to attack the Jesuits, nor the place to defend them. The place to attack the Jesuits, in so far as this Bill is concerned, was the Legislature of Quebv ; but whether a man i)e a friend or a foe of the Jesuits, it seems to mo that thoir history in Canada, whatever it may have b^en in other lands, has been such as to commend not only admiration, but the greatesi admiration. They have becMi the ])ioneers of this countrj'. In tlio language of a great hiitorian, not a cape was turnel, n)t a river waj entered, but a Jesuit led the way. Every inch of the soil of Ontario was trodden by their weary foot at least 150 yoai-a before there was an Engli- sters of Charity were expelled — angels on earth, if there are any, women who renounce everything that life can give in order to give their life up to the daily maintenance and succor of those who are poor, helpless and sutfering,. Not only those religious communi- ties, but the princes of the House of Orleans were also expelled fr.ij. France— men who were the elite of JFrance, men of whom more than forty years ego, Prince Met- ternich said, when thev were iu their boyhood : " They are young men such they are few and princes mJa. as they are none." The Due d'Aumale, one of them, was expelled, one of the noblest soldiers of the French army, a man whose aoul is so high that the only manner in which li requited the cruel treatment meted out to him was to make a gift to the ungrateful nation of the Chateau do Chantiry with all its art treasures. I have only this to say to an hon. 4^^ ntleman who brings such arguments as these : I feel ten thousand times prouder of my native land, which can deal justly ■p 172 and genoroiifily with tho Jcfiuits, than of tho Innd of my anoostoi'fl, which thoutrh n repnhli(\ is to-day ho rotrogndo in its constitution and practice of fioedom, that it banishes those who do not come np to tho standard of its own citizenship. In tliia matter, I am reminded that the hon. gentleman from Simcoo ( Mr. McCarthy ) yes- terday stated that we of Trench ori^^in sometimes for/^ot tiiat this is a British coun- try. I have his words here and I want to quote them : " Wo must never forget, said he, I am afraid that souio of my friends from tlie Province of Qiiehec do somnlinies forgot that this is a Uritish country, that hy tho fortunes of war thol ovout was decided, and the greater half of lliis continent jiassed over to Iho Uritish Crown." What did the hon. ^'entleman mean by that ? I wish he had said a little more or a little less. I wish he had not contended himself Avith making an insinuation, but that if he had n charge to make, lie should have had tho pluck and the courage to make it. ] toll this to tho hon. gentleman. I am of French origin and I am proud of my origin, and I know my follow countrymen of Anglo Saxon race too well not to bo aware that if T had not the pride of my origin in my heart they would never think of mo but with the contempt which 1 should deserve. I am of French origin, but I am a British subject. The hon. member for North Norfolk ( Mr. CharUon ) said, a moment ago, that there should be but one race hero. Mr. McCarthy. Iloar, hear. Mr. LAUEIER. Tho hon. gentleman says ''hear, hear." Well, what would that rate be ? Is it the British lion that is to swallow the French lamb, or the French lamb that is to swallow the British lion ? There can bo more than one race, but there shall bo but ono nation. Scotland has not forgotten her origin, as far as I know, but Scotland is British. I do not intend to forget my origin, but I am a Canadian before everything. Let mo state this further to my hon. friend, I have the pride of my origin ; I feel the strenght of the blood which flows in my veins, but, in the language of the Latin poet, I say : " Homo sum ; human! nihil a mo alienum puto." " I am a man ; nothing that relates to man is foreign to my sympathy; " but, at tho same time, though I would never forget tho language of my race, the langage which my mother taught mo, I say to the hon. gentleman that if I had my choice to return to French allegiance, never would I consent to do so. I do not speak only my own feelings when I thus speak but I voice tho feelings of every one of my countrymen. I do not give utterance me- rely to the feelings of those who sit beside me, but I am sure I speak the feelings of those French Canadians who sit on the other side as well, when I say that if to-day a poll was taken in the Province of Quebec, or all through the Dominion of Canada, giving a choice between allegiance to England or allegiance to France, there would not be one single vote cast in favor of a return to tho allegiance to Prance. We would remain British subjects ; but because we are British subjects, is it to be expected that we shall turn traitors to our origin, traitors to everything that makes life va- luable ? What would be life if a man had not in his veins and in his heart a feeling for the blood of his own country ? The hon. gentleman told us yesterday that ho was an Irishman. Would he deny the land of his ancestors ? Well, I would pity him from my heart if he would. But, after all, if ever we were to forget that we are of French origin I am sure we could not forget it in view of the agitation which is now going on in the Province of Ontario, because from day to day, from week to week, in a certain press, we have been appealed to — we of French origin — as Liberals of French origin — to vote for disallowance against the Jesuits' Act. From day to day in a certain press, tho Liberals of the Province of Quebec have been appealed to 173 vote a^'uinHt tlio (lovornmrtnt on thin (lUOMtion; utul in my hand I liohl ono of tho loHt, iaHuos, in whuili after having rocitod all the vil!anio8of which tho Jesuits are nccuHod, the wlitor continues a» Ibllowa : — " II is said to say, lliorelore, that if llin Lilf^rals ol En;.'land or ot Fninci wflrn in the position of Mr. Lauritir anil Ills I'ollowera lliey wduI 1 not hHsil.iiD ii inoinunt in killuiK ll>i8 coii-i(>iriicy in gutjbHc. liven ifthtiy did not hold Ihn Acts lo l)« ai)soliiloly unuopuiiulionul lliey would certainly volo for tlioir disullowdnca us boin^j conlrary to tin) public iMtt)^o^l. " "VVcll, as far as roforonco is made to tho Liberals of Franco, I have no doubt tho editor in ([uito correct. No doubt, if the Liberals of Franco had tiio nowor to vote on thirt question, Ihoy would certainly disallow this Act; but I have this to say, that I am not and wo aro not Liberals of tho French school. I have not said it once but ten times and twenty times in my own Province, that lama Liberal of the En- glish Hchool, that I and my friends have nothing in common with the Liberals of rraiico. A short time ago, 1 was sorry to hear my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Oharl(on) express regret that there was no Protestant party, as far as I understood hira. There aro mon of my own race, wh(> entertain tho same view as the hon. gen- tleman, and would desire to have a Catholic party, r have always raised my voice against that doctrine, and, as far back as 1877, speaking to a French audience in tho French lan-juage in the city which I have tho honor to represent now, the good old city of Queboc, I used to those who, like my hon. friend, would suparato mon upon tho ground of creed, this language : " You wish to organisii all tho (iulhdlics m on'i party, without any other tie, without any other basis Ihun tlie community oCroliKion, but havK you not ruflncltid ihul, liy that very luct, you will organlHH the i'roteslunl populaiion us unu parly, mid Ihiit lliuii, instead uf ihe peact) and harmony which exist lo-day between the ditrenMil t'l>'meiUs ol' Uio Canadian pupulalioii, you would l)ring on war, relib'ious war, the most disu^strous of all wars. " Those wore my sentiments ten years ago; those are my sentiments to-day. My hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) slated that wo should not allow this Act because the Jesuits are inimical to liberty. Such a statement would not surprise me in the mouth of a Liberal from Franco, but it does surprise nio to hoar it on the tloor of this Parliament. Are wo to be told that, because men are inimical to liborty, they shall not be given liborty? In our own do(;trine and in our own view, liberty shines not only for tho friends of liberty but also for tho enemies of liborty. We make no ditFerence whatever : and, as far as the liberals of England are concerned, I am sure of one thing, that, if they were hero, thoy would never vote as the editor of tho Mail supposed thoy would. Tho Liberals of England have boon for the last century and more tho champions of freedom all over the world, and, if avo have freedom to- day, as we understand it in this country, and in this age, it is largely duo to tho efforts of the Liberal party in England. Thoy understood long ago that liberty is not only for the friends of liberty but lor all. Thoy undoi'stood long ago that tho se- curity of the State depends entirely upon the utmost freotlom being given to all opi- nions , that no one ib to bo canvassed for his opinion, right or wrong, but that the Titmost freedom shall bo given to all opinions, and that the popular judgment will de- cide between the grain and tho chaff, will select tho ono and reject tho other. That is the principle which I have, in my humble way, endeavored to inculcate lor many years amongst my fellow-countrymen of French origin. That, with a steadfast adhe- rence to the broadest principles of constitutional freedom, is tho guiding star Avhich, in the station I now occupy and in any station I may have in life, I shall ever en- doubt, Simcoe (vincial linister ryors in subject lothwel) cer, the :hi8 8ub- ,id down ^as Gom- ^e consi- disallo- that was itinually )res9, as ' disallo- r within CO of the (I Icnow report of mt of the ^, was in- i'or any ixgainot jh North le Dorai- injurious lat raoa- linion, in prepar- ic in inir- U8 Bill, ia not ,at it in id before cports in ■j of ditto r as they Provin- gffOHtioil and in Govern- How that ature, it inber for there i^ to. The )8 allowance of a Bill which ih " ultra vires " does not make it law. The courts can at once interfere and it is only in those cases where Acts are " ultra vires, " and where leaving them on the Statute-book would cause groat injur}' to parties, that tht; right of disallowance should be exorcised. Hon. members will readily under.-itand that the moment an Act is passed by a Provincial Legislature people interested in the measure assume it is law, act on it, enter into large enterprises on it, and may bo ruineil if the Government did not immediately, with all convenient hpeod, interfere to protect those peo])le fi'om injury and ruin. In this case, as I have already said, we, the <- ov M-nmeut, including the legal members of it, had no doubt as to the fact that this Ac* was within the competence of the Local Legislature. And, Sir, I think it waa not left for us, we could not as a Government, against the decisions of the Legislature of Old Canada, and against the repeated legislation of the Province of C^uebec since Confedi'ration set up our own opinion against the various Acts that have boon passed. Wliy, 37 years ago, by the Legislature of United Canada, where the majority of the ropren.sentatives of the people wore Protestants, the St, Mary's College was incorporated with largti powers. The lion, member for Norfolk iMr, Charlton) says : because tho'-o wore some few Jesuit profo.ssors, that did not make it a Jesuit college. Now. I (ell the hon. gentleman that the corporators of the t^. Mary's College were the Bishop of Montreal and six Jesuit jjnests. Just Jis Victo- ria College is a Methodist College and Queen's a Presbyterian institution, so St. Mary's College is o Jesuit teaching iastitution. Mr. BLAKl-]. Everybody knew it waa a Jesuit college. Mr. BERGERON. It has never been disputed. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Let mo call the attention of the House to the division on that occasion. Let the hon. gentleman romomber that the niajority that voted for the Bill was 54 and only seven members, on the third reading, were oppo- sed to it. There was a larger vote against it in the second roa Morrison or his brother, Angus Morrison ; Mr Pago a prominoni lopresentativo from the Province of Quebec ; Mi. Patrick, of Prescott, whom we all lemember as being a good Liberal; Col. Prince, of Essex ; Sir Wil- liam Richards, then the Attorney -ficneral ; Mr. Ridout, the Consei vativo member for Toronto; IFoii. William Roliin.soii, whom we all remember a-* the brother ol' Sir .fohn Robinson, the leader of the old family compact party ; Dr. Rolph ; Sir John Rose; Mr. Seymour, afterwards a Senator ; Honorable James Shaw, afterwards ^ 12 178 a Senator ; Mr. Stevenson, of Prince Edward; the late Mr. Thomas Street; the late the Hon. George O. Stuart, of Quebec ; Mr. C. Wilson, of Middlesex ; Mr. Wright, of West Yorlv, a leading Orangeman, and, as m}"- friend from London can vouch, a staunch Protestant ; those were the gentlemen who voted for this Bill, and the members who voted against the Bill wore alt from Ontario. That is a sutliciont answer to my hon. friend from Huntington (Mr. Scriver) that in 1852 not one single Protestant representative from the Province of Lower Canada — the Province of Quebec— voted against the Bill, and that is a full justification of th< .statement of my lion, friend from Stanstead (Mr. Colby) when ho said that Protestants of the Province of Quebec were not opposed to the legislation of that subject. We find that so long as 87 years ago tlio Jesuit college Avas esta- blished in Montreal. I voted for that, Mr. Speaker, and 1 never have had cause to regret my vote. That institution has gone on in i) object is to peilormthe various functions of their ollicf, in cil'.es and in country |)laces, such as tlie [ireauhmg of missions and retreats, and to assume the direction of religious eongrigations, brotherhoods and societies botli of men and wo- men ; cim also at the request or with the permission of tli^ir lordships the Roman Catholic Bishops, or of any one o( tlicra, to devote themselves to other works for spiritual or moral purposes, by preachuig, precepts and education ; and, whereas, in order to consolidate their establishment and lo favor ils pros^perily and progress, ih^'y have prayed for leave to form a corporate body enjoying civil and imlilieal rights ; Therefore, Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legis- lature of QuHboc, enaols as follows ; " 1. Th" abovH named petitioners and all othiT poisons who may in future be l"<:ally asso- ciated with them in virtue of the jiresent Act, are hereby constituted a body politic, and shall form a corporation uu'ler the name of ' Les missinnnaires de Notre-L)ame, S. J. ' " '1. The said corporation shall, under the same name, have ))» rpetual succession, and shall have all ihi; rights, powers and privileges of other corporations, and particularly of those having a religious, spiritual or moral object. It may at all timi-s admit other m^mbtrs and establish th'-m in one ni more places. It may also at all limes and places by purchase, gill, devise, assignment, loan or in \irtue of this Act, or by any other lawful means and legal title, acquire, possess, inherilo lake, havi', accept and receive any movable or immovable prop-M-ty whatever, for the usages and purposes of the said corporation, and the same may hypoihtcale, sell, lease, farm out, exchange, ulienale, and linally dispose of laAvfuUy, in whole or in part, for the same purposes. ' And it goes on to say there must bo the limit of $10,000 as to the extent of immova- ble property they should hold. How could the present Uovernment in the face of as Stroot ; Middlesox ; Viond from emori who H'o all from irigton (Mr. Province of lat is a full ly) wbon ho legislation ;o was esta- ad cause to We do not th, nor any ollege. Wo j Avork well les we hear 3W invasion Is over this ive and use- he Provinco 1887 is not Act of 1871 .hem by (ho we find that iment. Wo ause an agi- i found that limiting this Itho n\easuro ominion of Uesllier, and 1 llie building,' lious functions Ireals, and to en and \vo- olic Bishops, [purposes, by ishmenl and dy enjoying of lliij Legis- |l"^',illy a?so- d bhiiil form |ii, and shall )se having a llablish Ui'-m assignm'Tit, |sess, inherilo usages and It, exchange, )f immova- the faco of 170 the solemn legislation of United Caiuida of 1852. and in the faco of the legislation of the Provinco of Quebec in 1871 — how could ihoy now sot up tlioii' own Opinion and declare that tiiis was a body that ought not to have oxistonco in Canada ? But Sir, let lis look on it as a matter of common sense. Wh.it harm havo iho Jesuit.s done, and have they done any? In 37 years, if their ])rincij)los were so void of morality, if their morality was so doubtful, it'thoir ambition was so inoidimito they would havo shown some evidence of it in 37 yours or since thoir incor|)onition in 1871. They havo gone on in their humble way (ciing like other Catholic orders in the Provinco of (Juobec, doing their duty accor.Jiiig to thoir lights. When you talk of their doctrines 1 have nothing to May about them ; all wo know is this, thoir doc- trines whatever thoy aro, are such as to meet w th the a|)probution of tho Iload of their Church or they would soon ho intbrmod of it in the authoritative way wliioh tho Head of that Church can govern all such religious bodies within tho Catholic ioli"ioii. Under those circumstancos 1 say wo would have boon acting wi'' adogreoofpiosumn- tion that I do not think any Canadian Government or any scnsiiMotJovornment iti any country would think of exercising if wo vetoed this Bill. Wo had no ground for doing so, we had the sanction of United Canada, as I said uofoi-e for this Act • wo had positive legislation acted upon in tho Provinco of Quebec for eighteen longyoars and that we should set up our own opinion is absurd. If wo did we would havo been justly subject to tho condemnation of every thinking man in Canada. Hut Sir, wo are told all about tho oxj)ulsion of tho Jesuits and tho Act of Supremacy, iind the unfavorable legislation that took ])laco in Englarid long long ago. It is too late for us todiscu.ss this subject to-night, or I would like very much to do so. But those laws practically have been obsolete in England. England is a vorj- Conservative country, and its general policy has boon, in tho chance of manners, in the advance of education and liberal ideas, not to rul» out statute alter statute whonovor it may apparently infringe upon or be adverse to the thought of tho day, but to allow them qiiiotly to drop ; and what is the consequence ? Look at Kngland. Are the people of P^ngland afraid of the insidious attempts of the Jesuit body to attack tho suj)re- macy of England ? Are they afraid that tho (Jueen's crown would tremble on her head ? Sir, one of the greatest and finest educational institutions in the world is that of Stoneyhurst, which is altogethtu* conducted as a Jesuit institution, where all the English Catholics, from tho Duke of Norfolk down, are educated ; and anybody who knows the situation of parties in Kngland must know that if fiiero be a loyal body of men in the whole world, if there be a loyal body '>f men within the dominions of Hor Majesty, it is the English Catlioli(;s, headed by the iJuko of Norfolk, thoir great chief. In England they are not afraid ; and why should we be afraid? Why, Mr. Speaker, there are known to be at least 300 Jesuits in England, .Fesuit pi'iests tea- ching. The collateral body, I think, is above 1,000 ; and there aro 180 in Ireland. Besides the College at Stoneyhurst, there is the College of Mount St. .Mary, and Beaumont College ; there are Jesuits teaching a collegiate institute at Canterbury ; there is a collegiate school at Liverpool ; and there is a Jesuit school in Jersey. Tho Jesuits are actively employed in educating tho youth of England, and we do not find that there is a remonstrance anywhere. Wo do not find that tho Acts which Avould affect their existence in England have ever been put in force. Why, it would be absurd. Tho Prince of Wales, tho heir of Her Majesty, upon whose head tho Crown of England will someday descend though we hold hope that Her Majesty may long continue to wear it — does not think his position as a Pj-otestanf sovereign will bo affected by the fact that there are Jesuits in Canada or in England. At the requiem service at a Jesuit Church the other day, for tho Archduke Rudulph, whose unhappy fate wo all know, tho Prince of Wales was present, and, strange to say, was so unconscious of the danger that he was running that after the service was over, he asked tho superior, as a souvenir of the event, to make him a gift of his missal or mass book. And Canada is the only country in the world where there are Jesuits, which is afraid of their insidious attempts to unsettlo tho constitution. 180 There are Jesuits by tlic thousands in the United States, and it' Canada is in danger, they can overHow into Canada just as well from the United States as they can from England, or bo cducalcd in the country. And, as a Presbyterian clergyman said in the pulpit hero, this, after all, is a mere matter of money ; and tl vt a religious ex- citement should be raised on a sum of money, and a small sum, t- >vvs how easily the public may be excited if only aery is got up, especially on i )^ious subjects. Wo know that public agitation may go on sometimes without reason, and to a groat extent, one cannot but deeply regret that the hon. member for Muskoka felt it to be his duly to uuiko this motion, which ought not to have been made — this motion which will bo the cause of a groat deal of discomfort in CantuJa. I look back, Mr. Speaker and I romembor the great social evils that religious evils have caused in this coun- try. I roraonibor when the whole country was roused on the Clergy Reserve question ■\Villiam Lyon Mackenzie said in the Parliament of Canada, after ho came back from his exile, that the proximate cause of the rebellion in Upper Canada was the Clergy Eesorvo question and the agitation upon il One can also remember how neighbor was set against neighbor on the separate school question ; and, therefore, i feel deeply that this country is injured, greatly injured — of course my hon. friend does think so — by the projection of this subject in this popular assembly ; and we cannot see what the result may bo. I hope and believe it will fade away like other cries, and I am induced to do so when I look back at the events connected with the Papal Aggression Bill of 1850. I happened to be in England in 185U. Then the excite- ment was tremendous, caused chiefly by the letter written by Lord John Russell, the Durham letter, and by the very unwise conduct of Cardinal Wiseman in making the announcement in the way he did. I remember the excitement in England. Car- dinal Wiseman, although having an English name, was a foreigner, a Spaniard ; and when he flaunted the Papal decretals from over the Flaminian gate Avith a great deal of }>onip and ceremony, it roused the sensibilities of the English people, and Lord John Russell took advantage of the excitement in order to make capital for himself. The agitation was so great in England that there Avas danger of a recur- rence of the Lord George Gordon riots. As in those day.-;, the strcotb and the doors were marked : '• no Popery. " Whenever I went along the streets I saw chalked on the houses : " No Popery. '' I think no ono went so far as the celebrated clown Grinialdi in Lord George Gordon's days, when ho wrote on his door : " No Reli- gion. " But we all remember the caustic cartoon in Punch, picturing Lord John Russell as a little boy in buttons, who Avrote " No Popery " on the walls, and then ran away. What was the result of that cry ? 1 was a younger man then than now, and I must say 1 was foi- a time carried away. Tho excitement was contagious, wherever I went, at the theatres and elsewhere, the crj' was : " God save the Queen, and down wiih the Pope. " You could not go in to a ])lace of public amusement but the crowds would assemble, and it was found necessary to put guards on tho banks and to protect Roman Catholic chapels. But Mr. Gladstone and some cooler heads — Mr. MILLS (Bothwelli. Sir James Graham. Sir JOHN A. ^fACDONALl). Yes ; Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, and some othe.s opposed the measure which had a most ignominious ending. Not ono single pro.seculion took place under that Act. Not one single proceeding was taken under it, and a few years aftoi wards, in 1871, the Act was repealed in silence. Not a single observation was made to continue it in ifcs wretched existence. Mr. BLAKE. Everybody was ashamed of it. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Everybodv, as the hon. member for the West Durham (Mi'. Blake) says, was ashamed of it. The Bill was scouted out of Parlia- mcLt, ulthough the excitement had been originally so enormous. I cannot i;onvoy danger, :an I'rom n Baid in ;iou8 ex- V easily lubjectB. ) u great t, it to be lU which Speaker lis coun- tjuestion ick from Clergy loighbor 0, i i'eel )nd does e cannot or cries, 10 Papal e oxcite- ssell, the .king the id. Car- ard ; and 1 a great )ple, and ipital for a recur- he doors talked on id clown No Ecli- )rd John ind then >an now, ntagiouB, le Queen, inent but le banks heads — lam, and Not one as taken icc. Not nc West Pailia- (^onvoy isi to you the excitement that existed in England at that time. I hope and believe that Avhen this matter is fully understood in the Province of Ontario, when the exhaus- tive speeches that were made upon it are read and discussed and weighed, the coun- try will see that their apprehensions are unfounded, and that the country is safe. Why, there are in all the Dominion of Canada 71 Jesuits. Are they going to conquer the Avhole of Canada? Is Protestantism to be subdued ? Is the Dominion to bo seduced from its faith by 71 Jesuit priests ? They are armed with a string of beads, a sash around their waists and a mass book or missal. What harm can they do ? I told my reverend and eloquent friend, Dr. Potts of Toronto, that I would match him physically and spiritual!}', against any follower of Ignatius Loyola in the whole Dominion of Canada. Now, o^lly think of it. The Jesuits claim, and claimed with an appearance of right, that the etfect of their restoration should be to give them back all their own property. They contended for that, and they had the right to tight the best battle they could. Look at the pajiers. The}' said that the value of the property was 82,000,000, but they came down, however, graciously, and said they would take $1,000,000, or, to be accurate, I think, ^0110,000. But the Go- vernment of the Province of Quebec said : No, you cannot h:ive tiiat : you can only have $400,000— not a very large sum. Why, Mr. Mercier has been gi-anting in the interest of his country, sums as big as that for railways here and there through Quebec. We do the same tiling here. It is no very large sum. But not only ditl Mr. Mercier contine the vote to $400,000 but ho said: You shall have not the whole of it ; perhaps you shall have none of it. The other eccle- siastic institutions. Catholic colleges, said they had a right to their share. Now, it was a family matter, it was in foro dovustico, and, as the lion, member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) truly said, it was their own money, it was the property of the Province of Quebec and they could do with it as they liked. Theio is almost no subject to which the Quebec Government could not apply these moneys under the general phrase of" property and civil rights. " The hauls themselves, if they came to the old Province of Canada by escheat, the moment that Tipper and Lower Canada were severed, those lands, by the terms of the British North America Act, became, like any other public lands in the Province of Quebec, subject to be sold or kept or retained or applied for any purpose the Government of that Province chose. You cannot bind any Province to carry out the original intentions of the donors. This land became their property, and tli representatives of the people, the legislators of the Province, have a right to apply their own property and the proceeds of their property for any purpose they have a right to deal with under the powers of the Act. ITow does it turn out ? It was left to the Pope to settle in what proportion the diflferent collegiate institutions should have this $400,000 ; aad His Holiness, instead of being the special supporter of the .Jesuit Order, inste.'ul of pressing their interest on the people of Canada, instead of giving them wealth in order to advance their insidious designs against the Crown and dignity of Canada, cut them down to the miserable sum of $160,(J00. He has given the rest of it to the other collegiate insti- tutions and to the bishops for the purposes of higher education. 1 hear the argument stated that it is not stated, in so many words, that the money going to the Jesuits shall be devoted to educational purposes. Why, they are a teaching body in Canada exclusively now. There is not a single parisli in the whole Province of Quebec which has a Jesuit as its cur6 ; there is not a single parish in which the Jesuits have any control. They are a teaching body in the Province of Quebec. They have a mission in which education and Christianity go hand in hand among the Indiansand the Esquinuiux on the Labrador coast, where they are doing a great deal of good, where they are suffering the hardships and miseries whicl> we read in Parkmanthey were always ready to suffer in the cause of religion and humanity. And strange to say, if we go west, leaving the Eastern Piovince of Quebec, to the Pi-ovince of Ma- nitoba, we Und there the College of St. Boniface with Archbishop Tachd at its head, and the professors are six Jesuit priests. We do not hear of Manitoba raising up a ■FT 182 ciy ogairiHt that institution. Wo know how easily popular oxcitomont in a young country like that, lull of'arUont Bpirits, can ho raisocl. I have occasion to know something about that. Well, thoy submit to the enormous wrong of having six Jesuit priests teaching in Manitoba Avith as much apathy as the Protestants in the Province of Quebec ; and more than that, strange to say, there is the Anglican clergy under the charge of the Bishop of the Church of England, there is the Presbyterian clergy under the charge of the Presbyterian body, and thoy are so rocroanl to their Pro- testantism, thoy are so apathetic, that they have joined hand-in-hand in forming a common university, that common university giving degrees, and the governing body of that university is composed of Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans And all this cry is for some ?160,000, which, at four per cent., amounts to some $0,000 a year. I cannot but remember the story of the Jew going into an eating house and being seduced by a slice of ham. When he came out, it so happened there was a crash of thunder, and he said : Good lieavens, wliat a row about a little bit of pork. It is a little bit of pork, and as tho poor Jew escaped being crushed by the thunderbolt, I have no doubt Canada will escape from tho enormous sum of $6,000 a year. If this Bill had been introduced in other torms it would have been fortunate. I agree with those gentlemen who say that the framers of the Bill, by tho way it is drawn and the insertion of those recitals, almost court the opposition of tho member for Mus- koka. I agree that that is so, and, if the Bill had not mentioned tho Society of Jesus it would have passed without any opposition. If tho moni-y had boon given to tho Sulpicians, the money had been given to tho University of Laval, if the money had been given to the bishops of tho diiTerent dioceses for higher education, no one would have objected to it, this Bill would not have excited any attention ; but, it is just because the Jesuits have got historically a bad name from Protestant history, and it was simply because their name was in the Bill that all this agitation has been aroused. This subject is not a new ono. Years and j'oars ago, long before Confederation, the subject was discussed in Parliament, and strong arguments wore used against tho recognition of the claim for Jesuits' estates, and the feeling of opposition was shown and emphasised in the sentence which was used by a worthy member of Parliament — ". f^^c,'} Grit he was, by the way, and a very I'cspectablo and honest man, strange to say — but ho exempliticd tho feeling of tho country in ono sentence. His speech Avas a very effective one. It was this : " Mr. Speaker, f don't like them there Jesuits. " That was tlie "eeling. There was a prejudice against the Jesuits, and it is from that same prejudice that all this agitation has been aroused. Now, I can only repeat that tho Governmeit would have peiformed an act of tyranii}' if they had disallowed the Bill. Believing as wo do that it is perfectly within tho competence of that Legis- latui'C, and dojs not in any way affect any other portion of Her Majesty's dominions, there would b) no excuse for our interfering, even according to tho rigid principles which my hen. friend opposite thinks govern us. I agree strongly with the lan- guage used hy the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock). Supposing this Bill had been disf llowed, Mr. Morcicr would have gained a great object. Ho would have boon the champion of his church. The moment it was announced that this Bill was disallowed there would have been .^ summons for a mooting of the Legislature of Quebec. They would have passed that Bill unanimously, and would have sent it back here, and Avhat would have been the consequence ? No Government can be formed in Canada, either by myself, or by the hon. member who moves this resolution (Mr. O'Brien), or by my hon. friend who sits opposite (Mr. Laurior), having in view tho disallowance of such a measure. What would be the consequence of a disallowance ? Agitation, a quarrel — a racial and a religious war would be aroused. Tho best interests of the country would be prejudiced, our credit would bo ruined abroad, and our social relations destroyed at home. I cannot sufficiently picture, in my faint lan- guage, the misery and the wretchedness which would have been heaped upon Canada if this question, hairing been agitated as it has been, and would bo, had culminated in a series of disallowances of this Act. 183 Some hon. MEMBERS. Question. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGUT. (Oxford, S. Ridin(i.) I sympathise entirely with the desires of hon. <;:ctitlomon, and I do not propose to occupy (ho time of the House ut any len<^th, Itut this is not u question on which I intend to record my vote without explicit!}' doclarin-j the reasons which actuate me on this occasion. As to the speech which has heen made by (ho hon. the Premier, I (hink the hon. gentleman cor(ainly had very lildo f,n'<»und I'or charf^in;f my lion. I'ricnd the member for Quebec EastiMr. Laurier) with any irrelevancy in his remarks, at any rate as compared with the .jmarks in which (he hon. gcndoman himself indulged, for he most assuredly travelled over a wider range and wont back over u greater number of years than my hon. friend requireil to traverse on Ins part. There is one remark which the hon. gentleman made, having reference to a g-'-.tloman who Jias long since departed from amongst us, which, to (he best of my 'owlodgo and to the knowledge of other hon. gentlemen here who knew him betterthan 1 did, was not a just or a fair remark for (ho Preinier to have made. That was the state- ment that the late Hon. George Brown had declared — as I took down the hon gentleman's words — that it was part of his policy to suppress the French language in Canada. If the hon. gentleman will show, if fie will produce on the floor of this House any evidence that Mr. Brown did make use of such a statement, we will bo willing to accept his assurance, but, although my acquaintanc . with Mr. Brown was not as long as that of the hon. gentleman, I knew him for a considerable number of years, and I cannot recollect having seen in his writings or heard from his lips any statement or any language at all warranting (ho assertion which has lately been made by the hon. gondoman. In reference (o some of the remarks made, and mo.st justly made, by mj' hon. friend from Quebec (Mr. Laurier), that the jwlicyofthe present Government, in wanlonly and needlessly interfering wi(h provincial rights, was largely and principally responsible for the prosen( agi(ation which we must all deplore, the hon. gentleman opposite took rel'uge in the old tu 17 aoyue argument that, in the time of my hon. friend beside mo (Mr. ^Mackenzie), cor(ain Bills had been dis- allowed ; and he i-oferrcd especially (o one from Prince Edward Island which he asserted had been disallowed by us. My recollection is — and I have consulted my lion, friend the member for West Durham (Mr. Blakei in regard to it — (hat it was reserved by the Lieutenant Governor of (hat Pi-ovinco, and that, as was done by the ]»on. gentleman himself, in a certain memorable instance, it was not disallowed, but was sent back to the Province to be considered by (he Lieutenant Governor. Perhaps the hon. gentleman rocollocts that, on a certain occasion, a Bill (or (he incorporation of (ho Orange Order was sent (o him under ])recisely similai circumstances, and that he — good Orangeman as he is — sent back that Bill because it had been reserved by the Lieutenant Governor who, he s(a(ed, had no business to .ict in that way without instructions. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Yes ; that is the case. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. That was exactly tho case in regard to the Eill from Prince Edward Island. Sir JOHN A. 1* ACDONALD. My impression was that it was the other way. Mr. BLAKB. It was the case of a reserved Bill. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Tho report was made by Mr. Scott ? Mr. BLAKB. Yes. 184 Sir innilAIIDCAliTWRKIHT. S)tlKil wo lollowod tliooxninploof'lho hon.goii. tloman in tl\at matter. Now, 1 liavo mt ohjoction whatovor to say tlial. I boliov«) tho report which tho hoii. ^'ontlomun luado in 18<)i»j^iive a vory full and lair accoiuit ofthe linos which wo onj^lit (o Iiavo boon ^ovornotl in ih aiin^ with pi'ovincial ris^hts. But flincothnt tinio, m wo all know, tho hon. ^ontloman toll from grace, but woaro glad to floo by tho Hlatomcnts mado thoothor night b}' tho Minihtor of Justico, that here again tho hon. gentleman is i oming back to tho identical principlch, and is framing his policy on those identical lines, which wore advocated from this side of thollouso. As my lum. fViend triily naid, wo are gotting used to these sudden extraordinary conversions on tho f)art of the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend pointed out to him that before three woekn mvo elapsed from tho time when wo adviseti tho tiwdius oionuli to be put in force, wo find the hon. gontU'man and his colleagues, by their act in Council, giving ettocl to tho proposition made by ray hon. friend. Let. me recall to tho hon. gontloman'si mind tlio language with which ho receivctl that proposition. Unless my rocolleetioii is wholly at fault, we were UAd that it would be to go down on our knees to thogroat American nation, it would disgrace Canada, it was unworthy of a free people, unworthy of a free Governmeut; yot in three woekn ho accedes to tho propobition. Sir JOHN A. MACDOXALD. No, no. Look at JTamard. Sir HICITAllD CARTWRianT. T will not irritate or aggravate tho hon. gentleman by reritirg all the other sununersauHs that ho has peii'ormed in tho last few years. But that i^^ very far from being tho only ca?o in which tho hon. gentleman recently has chosen, for reasons of his own, to take a leaf out of our books and to ))uL on tho Statute-book tho exact policy which wo have over and over again pointed out to him, and pointed out to this country, as the oidy one which can bo followed in tho intoroHts of the people of Can.ada. As my hon. friend beside mo (Mr. Mackenzie) reminds me, that is no new thing on the part of tho hon. gentleman. Almost all his life his business has been to make capital by opposing, as long as ho thought it safe, all the Liberal ideas, all tho improvomonts, all the useful suggestions that wero made; and then whcnthero was a chance of obtain inga reasonable amount of protit, tbo hon. gentleman was prepared to adopt them ; nor did ho ever in all his life do HO more remarkably than in tho case of iho adoptiop of tho scheme of Confede- ration itself, which to my certain knowledge — for I was a member of Parliament then — tho hon. gentleman oppo.sed with might and main, tooth and nail, until he was confronted with dissolution from which bo know ho had not tho ghost of u chance of emerging successfully. 1 will not .spend any more time over tho bygono proceedings of Iho hon. gentleman. I wish to say. however, a few words a-; to tho question now in hand. I am in jiait di.sposed to agree with some of tho hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this question in believing that this is not a light matter, that this may bo attended with serious results indeed. I do not know and none of us can tell, to what extent this agitation may ultimately spread. Tho vote that will bo given to-night is a foregone conclusion, but it may well bo that the end is not yet. Therefore, I hold that it is doubly our duty under these circums- tances, speaking as men with a grave responsibility upon us, to declare why and wherefore we are not in a position at this moment to accept tho motion recently made by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien i. As I have said, so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, this demand for interference with the legislation of the Province of Quebec is in a largo degree duo to tho action which the (lovorn- ment h.avo previously taken by their unjust interference with Acts passed by other Provincial Legislatures, passed by tho Provincial Legislature of my own Province, passed by the Province Legislatui'o of Manitoba, distinctly within their rights. Tho hon. gentlemen tor their own reasons, and in pursuance of their own object.s, chuse to disallow these, and, therefore, the}- cannot blame their supporters if, uiidoi- existing circumstances, they demand that thoy should put in force tho same rule 185 y and oently iH the iatioii ovorn- otlioi" evince, Tlio chit.sc uiulor e rule and luw (or tho Province of(j!ueboo that thoy huv;» put in tbroo I'orollioi- ProvinooH of this Dominion. Sir, they choHO to constitute tliomselvcH a court of appeal as to those Acts. 1 hold that tho mombor for Xorth Sitncoo \M.v. McCarthy) w;ih perfectly rij^ht in Haying that when two gontlomon holding the po;4itioii of the l''irst Minister and the Minister of Cuntoms and affiliating with tho Hocioty to which thoy belong believe that this Act was a bad ono, if they thought thoro wtw anything objoctioiiublo, ill it, then thoy were bound by thoir own previous proceedings to dLsallow thi^ Act and to take tho consoquonco. Now, Sir, tho position ol" throe parties in this U')aHo in tolerably clearly detined. Tho position of tho raoraber for North Simcoo and his friends is clear enough. They maintain that wo have a right to intortbro and to sit in judgment on provincial logialaturo. They disapprovo of this Act, and they consistently/ call upon tho Govermont to diHallow it. So tho position of hon. gentle- men on this side is clearly defined. We have always declared that the Provinces had a full and perfect power to legislate on subjects which woro formally assigMcd to them, and that on such subjets wo ought not to interfere with thoni, oven where some of us might believe that their action was unwise or imliscroot. But as to tho Government, their position in wholly ditlorent. AVo find them on this occasion, as on almost all others, sometimes assuming one line and pursuing ono policy, and sometimes on grounds, as thoy allege, of high moral conviction, disallowing an Act like that of the Province of Manitoba ; but in cases like this, where there is too much at stake, wo do not find the hon. gentlemen are troubled with any serious moral convictions which would lead them into collision with a i)owerful and united Pro- vince. Now, I do not in the least offer any opinion as to tho legality of tho Sroceodings. I am whollj' in acconl with tho hon. member I'ui- West York ( Mr. [ulock) and with other hon. gentlemen who have spoken here, in saying that if there be a question as to the legality of this Act, tho proper place to settle it is tho courts. I do not think this House is in any way constituted to act as a legal tribunal. I do not think the country would have coiitidonce in us, acting as a legal tribunal, I am sure for one I would not. Now, we have two opinions from mon eminent in their profession of the most possible opposite character on this question. There is no doubt whatever, I suppose, that there are very few (luostious of this nature on which legal gentlemen of the eminence of the Minister of Justice, or the hon. member for North Simcoe, or of the constitutional knowledge of my hon. friend from Bothwe'l (Mr. Mills), cannot make out at first sight a very good and a very plausible case, but with that I have nothing to do. What we are concerned with here is tho question whether it is advisable for us to make use of this extreme power which wo possess, which the Government possess, under tho British North America Act, to disallow this legislation. Sir, I have always observed this plain principle in respect to such proceedings : I say that tho position which tho Dominion of Ciinada and tho Government of Canada occupy with respect to tho Provinces, is identically the samo as that which the Parliament and the Government of England occupy with respect to this Dominion Parliament, and that we should imitate theo.\amplo of the English Government and English Parliament in abstaining from interfering with the Pro- vinces. They have scrupulously abstained, in all but a very few cases, growing- yearly less and less— almost none I may say within the last few years — from interfering with our legislation, and so we in turn are bound carefully to abstain as the honorable gentleman knows right well and as all honorable gentle- men I supjjoso know, are precisely and identically the same, and just tho same powers are given to tho English Government to disallow tho Acts of from interfering with the legislation of the Province. Tho words used in the Act this Parliament as is given to tho Canjidian Government to disallc w provincial Acts, and it would be idle, it would be needless for mo to waste tho time of tho House by reminding hon. members how thoy would resent any interference on tho part of tho British Government in a matter which came clearly and distinctly, as these I think come clearly and distinctly, within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatti"c. ,%. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // // ^ m>. 7a V <^ ^a f^? 1.0 ii 11.25 1^ 12.8 2.5 L'.: u 1^ M 1.4 Photographic Sciences Corporation 1.6 23 VVEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \ ^^ « '^"^^ ;\ O A ^ V * 186 All I desii-e to say with respect to the Bill now in hand is this : With the incoi*po- ratioa of the Jesuits we have nothing to do. The hon. gentleman was perfectly right as other hon. gentlemen were right, in calling the attention of the country and the House to the fact that over and over again other Acts of incorporation had been passed incorporating certain portions of this order. All, I say, we have to do with in these matters is the question, whether we were justified in interfering with this particular Act passed by Mr. Mercier. With respect to that question, I am bound to say that I myself entertain very great doubts of the wisdom and propriety of that Act. I doubt whether if I had lived in the Province of Quebec I would not have felt it to be my duty to have opposed it ; but that is not the question^ it is not what my opinion is and whether I approve of it or not, or whether it is justifiable on the whole. The question is this : Whether after the Legislature of Quebec has under- taken to deal with this subject, we, the Parliament of Canada, have a right to interfere with it ? On that point, no more than the hon. gentleman do I entertain any doubt. I hold that it was fully within their constitutional rights, and I hold, therefore, that we have no business whatever to interfere with it or meddle with the disposal of the money entrusted to their care in any shape or way. If they have done wrong, let them answer for it to the people of the Province of Quebec, whom they specially represent. Let us not bring their Acts into controversy here, where, for various reasons, it is almost utterly impossible that we should come to a fair and equitable decision on the merits of any case passed on by a Provincial Legislature. More than that. Besides thinking it is beyond our right, I must add this, that I think it would be in the highest degree impolitic, in the highest degree contrary to good government, that it would impair the whole fabric of cur Confederation if we took the advice of the hon. member for Muskoka ( Mr. O'Brien ) and proceed to disallow this Bill, I have seen, as well as the hon. gentleman, what the result of these religious feuds ard discords sometimes is; and I say that I believe, il you were to disallow this Bill, most assuredly two results would flow from it : one would be that you would have a solid and united Lower Canada occupying to us approximately the same position that Ireland unhappily still holds in the British Parliament; and the other (if the hon, member for Mus- koka (Mr. O'Brien) desires especially to achieve that end) that you would make the Order of Jesuits the most powerful religious body in Quebec, and probably in North America. Those two results would flow from the adoption of the idea of the hon. member for Muskoka and the disallowance of the Act on the grounde set forth in his motion. I, for one, will be no party under any circumstances or for any con- sideration to stirring up religious strife among my contryraen. So far as my power goes, so far as my voice and vote can go, I desire to have the rights on my own Province respected, and I desire to see the rights of a sister Province respected. I desire to maintain my own rights, my own religious belief, my own right to act as a free man in this country, and these rights which I claim for myself I will also not merely give to my fellow-countiymen, but I am ready to champion and obtain for them in every shape and way that I can possibly do so. If I had any doubt as to the correctness of my conviction I would find it in the fact that we have to-night for the first time in many years my venerated friend (Mr. Mackenzie) coming here to record his vote against a proposition which would set man against man and kindle the flames of religious bigotry from one end of this Dominion to the other. House divided on amendment (Mr. O'Brien) : Barron, Bell, Charlton, Cockburn, Denison, Yeas : Messieurs Macdonald (Huron), McCarthy, McNoill, O'Brien, Scriver, Sutherland, Tyrwhitl, and Wallace,— 13. 187 incorpo- tly right ' and the had been • do with (7ith this m bound ,y of that lot have not what le on the 18 undor- right to entertain i I hold, with the hey have ic, whom e, where, % fair and ^'.slature. is, that I ntrary to eration if [ proceed j^hat the say that results ed Lower inhappily for Mus- nake the in North * the hon. forth in any con- y power my own ected. I to act as also not jtain for ubt as to to-night Dg here aan and other. Amyot, Armstrong, Audet, Bain (Soulanges), Bain (Wentworth), Barnard, Beausoleil, Becliard, Bergerouy Bergin, Bernier, Blalce, Boisvert, Borden, Bourassa, Bowell, Bowman, Boyle, Brien, Brown, Bryson, Burdett, Burns, Cameron, Campbell, Cargill, Carling, Carpenter, Caron (Sir Adolphe), Carlwright (Sir Richard), Casey, Casgrain, ■(^liislioim, Choquette, Cliouinard, Cimon, Cochrane, Colby, Colter, Cook, Corby,