■^" IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) m {/ w /, % ^\% /#/A- 1.0 1.1 us o u lAO 1^ 11-25 III 1.4 1.6 Vi ■^^r V c* °^ :^* '^■^^ /A o / Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STRIiET WEBSTER, NY. M580 (716) 873-4S03 ■^ 4' CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CiHM/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques The Institute has attemptec! to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlced below. n D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou peilicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. nutre que bleue ou noire) D D D D D Colouied plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior ..le^gin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure 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 ajouties tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mals, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas At6 filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a mIcrofllmA le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurer. F.es details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibiiographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont Indiqute ci-dessous. I — I Coloured pages/ Pa^es de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored ond/oi Pages restaurAes et/ou peiiiculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dtcolortes, tachetAes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough> Transparence Quality of prir Qualit6 in6gale da i'impression mcludes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire Only edition available/ Seu(a Mition disponible I — I Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored ond/or laminated/ r~> Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I — I Pages detached/ r^ Showthrough/ I — I Quality of print varies/ I — I mcludes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalemen*. ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont At6 fiimies A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y ,J ^~"~^ 19V IfiX 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit gr&ce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque naJonale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract spscifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each mi'^rofiche shall contain the symbol -♦►(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction rateos. 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 images suivantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sent film^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'Mlustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinta d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., ^euvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE GAZETTE AND MAIL'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL ( 1888 ) BY A. E. JONES, S. J " It was not necessary to cite authors to prove that the custom of civilized nations is to respect private property, or any property not obnoxious to the fundamental law of the conquering state."— J/(^«/ac-'"'eniioned'in';ra:nsi^;;;;;on' '' ' The government theiefore h;;;';io",;o;it;v';;;;;;birdaim: ■ The'pr^s^nV Soci^i^: ' of Je^us has. [Se>- note] ^ Kditoiial note of the Gazette to the above reply....." !'* Nkco.no AKTICI.K OF TiiK - (Jazkttk." [./line 2.5, 1888] !! Third articlk ok thk •' (J.^zettk." [.June 27, 1888] • Seco.no reply to the '' G.vzETTE," [Juuc 28, 1888] . . . The shallowness of the Gazette-., vt'ai>onin> UUe of ^^ronj.e^t in General;- ncrorln,., to ,l,r f.nrs of natinn.Tconnurrnr MuMt, an,} .nunorlaUt,, : t.o e.enUal ,ropn-tcns of a M, cor,Jate •<, //>e bocieti, of .le,u, ia Canala ,va» a ho b, corporate Jnun 1G78.' It. ri.,ht of urn- ' Pt^rt;, ,,'nsproterteJh,, the iMU'gof Xation.-^ Ti. letters ,atent .t the hwuei, K>.,, a:oie,un ...^v;;.?;/;;;,;;:;;::";;;;;';;;; ■' I he Ro,al u,.trarnon. oj 17.1. t.„ .a,pr..> t'. Jesuit... are a per., uptLt proof of "'etr corporate e.o.istence down to that d lie at I, a.i/ "u An.wek to the -O^ZErn-^VontinueJ, [Ga:ette,Juf,^Zmsi:. 3. settorihttll U4e motives of his action 'r n 1; W II Paob. He cxroininiinicnlt!} in lii.s hiieC tliodc; who uiiilly or in writing insult thcmt'ni- liers of tlu' Society... 'VI The .Ji'Kiiif s l-'xtattH are (.'hiirch Vrniio.rUi 'J2 Tlif Kin;/ of Frniir.p riiiibl hare no lei/ilinKilf till'- lo t/irni ; and ronnri/iirnl/i/ lifiitficr C()ul.'! English Aathorittes on the rights o/ Religious Orders in Canada to their propertg as secured hg treatg ■\'.\ Thurlnw on the above rights and on the change of pre-existing laws 14 English Penal and Common Law, as such, do not hold in the Colonies ; the mean- ing of the clause : " as far as the laws of Great Jirilain /lermit " 44 A.N.swKii TO THK "' Gazkttk.'' — Continued. [Gazette, Jalg 5, 1888] 47 The title hg escheat is not valid, nor was it urged, in the matter of the Jesuits' Estates 47 A corporate bodg can not he ileslroged hg the ruler in virtue of his Rogal prero- gative alone 48 I'roof that the Crown inhibited the Jesuits fron' receivini/ new nnmhers. Con- sequenllg the title of the province to the estates hg escheat is nntcnable 41* lietore the law, the /lositive claim of the Jesuits to their estates is valid '>{) TuK (lAZKTTKs LAST WoKi) — [July 7, 1888] A further reply to the (lazetto is refused pul)lication ."i!) TuK IIK.IKCTK1) IlK;oi.\i)Kit to tlic Gazcttc's Last Word '■> A legal .snub from Sir I'letcluT Norton and William de Grey. — Diinkin's dreams. beside the (|iu'>>tion <>" " The tilh- which u-nn f/imi //>/ the Kin;/ ' I he uld J'rorince of Lower Canada wan not onhj hji conquest but bij escheat is a Gazette proposi lion without proof. t>T A rrunib of comfort. — The ghost of escheat finally laid. — The confiscation based solely on the rigiits of conquest <>S From pillar to post. — The Gazette's iwn rulpa. — His last blunder worse than the first <>n Father Casot's real status made clear 70 II I THE TORO^tTO MAIL AND THE LITTLE DREAMER. The Toronto Mail Juhi 2, 1888. Summary of the Article and Reply 72 T<>xt of the Article and Reply 72 The Pope as a fourth Estate in the Province of Quebec 72 Are what arc termed Jesuits' Estates public property ? 73 Does it belong to the people of Quebec irrespective of Creed ? 73 The e.xact terms of the cession to Quebec of the Jesuits' Estates. — Lord Gode- rich's despatch, July 7, 1831 73 The real solutioi 74 The Protestant horse and the Huntingdon nigiitnuire 75 Ignorance of the Quebec Legislature in not knowing that instead of the Pppe the Mail and Gleaxkr are the fourth Estate in the realm 76 The Toronto Mail, Julii 5, 1888. Summary of the Article and Reply 78 The spoliation theory. — A rule thatshould work both ways. French and English Lawo. — The stream that runs up hill 76 Text of the Article and Reply 77 After the Brief of Suppression in 1773 did the 'Jesuits cease everywhere to exist? — Frederick II. — Mgr Briaiid and Carleton. — The Brief never pro- mulgated in Canada 78 Were the Royal Instruction, 1791, ever carried into effect ? — Stubborn facts vs. the Mail's doubts. — Was an alien General of the Order the proprietor of the Estates ? 79 The non-solidarity of the Jesuit establishments. — The Institute of the Jesuits determines the powers of the General 80 What of the proprietorship in Canada? — The General an alien, an idle rjues- tion. — The non-solidarity question and civil legislation in Protestantand Catholic countries 81 Does a mendicant order hold property ?— Jurisprudence on these matters in France 82 The Mail waives an untenable point, etc 83 Escheat once more.— The Mercer and the Jesuits' Estates.— The Mail's notions on parallelism.— Proscribed in England 84 IV The Jesuits and the Kngli.h Government after 17".T-X„ ronfiscution of th!,'"'' KHtatcs n. I.a Martii.if,„o, nor in India.-An mlverse precedent 8.", Tiii-KLow vs. liLACKSToNK.-CoIonial I>en«I Laws a n.vth 8H The Mail's dishonest taclics.-The questioa Mimme.l up 87 Does the brief of 1773 palliate spoliation ?-.Vo ^\a^y in the'lin^'of' argVunent against escheat —A correction g-j The Mail'8 test of analogy !....!...... 87 Analysis of the assume.! parity between the JesiVii 'cori)o'ration ami the Orange'- men and Masons in Quebec g^ The Society of Jesus identifies itself with no purely political party. .....' m The Society grateful to its benefactors, irrespective of party . «o The Mail declares that in passing the Mills of Incorporation an'd Compensation 111 favor of the Jesuits //,r Quvh.c LcjnJ.aure /.. n-ell within itx ri,,hls ; and that the only justifiable ground of Disallowance would be' that pul)lic good would suffer ,„ Lax Kthicfl.— A general rejoinder.-la-t truth be cherished by on'r'adVersaries. !>' Useful References in the present controversy ,j^ Thk Jkhimt Declaratiox ok liiGUTs made previous to the seizure 03 FIRST ARTICLP: of the "GAZETTE." (The Gazette, Montreai, June 22, 1888.) THE JESUITS' ESTATES. The question of the Jesuits' Estates is, we venture to think, much simi.ler tlian it has been made to appear. We do not now propose to question Mr. Mercier's power to give to the present order of Jesuits a half m.ihon of dollars; nor do we wish to impugn the merit of that society : we merely desire that the facts concerning the estates of the Jesuits of 1760 may be understood. They are not many in number It IS not worth while to discuss the position under French law of the Jesuits in Canada at the conquest. They held property here in some way as a matter of fact, and were recognized by the King of France. Their position under the English regime necessarily depended upon the terms-ist of the capitulation to Amherst in 1760 ; 2nd upon those of the cession to the English Crown in 1763 under the treaty Article 32 of the capitulation reads : " The communities of nuns shall " be preserved in their constitutions and privileges. They shall con- " tmue to observe their rules. They shall be exempted from lodging II any military, and it shall be forbid to trouble them in their religious " exercises." The reply of Amherst was : " Granted." Article 2>Z reads ■ " The preceding article shall likewise be executed with regard to the •' communities of Jesuits and Recollets and of the house of St Sulpice " at Montreal. This last and the Jesuits shall preserve their right to " nominate to certain curacies and mission^: as heretofore " 'I'he " answer of Amherst was : " Refused ; till the king's pleasure be " known. " The next Article provided that the Jesuits, Recollets and Sulpicians " shall be masters to dispose of their estates and to send " the produce thereof, as well as their persons and all that belongs to "them, to France." Thus in the surrender, of the country by the governor of New France to the general-in-chief of the English army the case of the Jesuits was specially considered. It was to depend " upon the pleasure of the king " of England. From 1760 to the close of the war everybody in Canada waited in uncertainty as to the fin^;! result. The det^nitive treaty of peace was !;: i,ri iji * I : i! i 1? I it H signed at Paris, on February lo, 1763. The only stipulations bearing upon the question are the following : "His Britannic Majesty agrees ** to grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of *' Canada ; he will consequently give the most effectual orders that his *' new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their reli- ** gion according to the rites @f the Roman Church as far as the laws *^ of Great Britain permit. His Britannic Majesty also agrees that " the French inhabitants, or others who had been the subjects of the " most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and *' freedom whenever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates, '■'■ provided it be to subjects of His Britannic Majesty^ and bring away *' their effects, as well as their persons, without beii.g restrained in *' their emigration under any pretence whatever, except that of debts *' or criminal prosecutions ] the term limited for this emigration shall ** be fixed for the space of eighteen months to be computed from the day *' of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty. " Thus it is manifest that what was secured to the French Canadians by treaty A'as the hberty to worship according to the rites of the Roman Church to the limit of the English law as it then stood ; while the Sul- picians, Recollets and Jesuits were left under the terms of the capitula- tron, viz : to " the pleasure of the King " as regards their property ; but they, like all other Canadians, might sell their estates to English subjects within eighteen months and retire to France. The Sulpicians complied. The heads of the order in France sold all their Canadian property within the sijecified time to the house in Canada. The Su.- picians in Canada became British subjects and followed the fortunes of the French Roman Catholic Canadians who remained in the country. This the Jesuits did not do. The rules of their order would not permit it. Consequently they, by the terms of the capitulation, remained still " at the ])leasure of the King." Tlere is a profound distinction between the Seminary of St. Sulpice and the order of Jesuits. The first was originated by ]'"rench subjects in France under French law : the second originated in Spain ; it is of no nationality, and its law is the will of its general. While the emigration was going on and the Sulpicians were arranging for the transfer of their property, before the eighteen months had expired, the Government of France, in t7;)4, suppressed the order of Jesuits, dissolved its houses, and banished from the soil of France all its members. So far as French law had effect, the Jesuit order ceased to be. The blow had been long impending. The bishops of France had represented to the Due de Choiseul that the unhmited authority of the general residing at Rome was incompatible with the laws of 'g id France. The " pleasure of the King of England " was not likely to be more propitious than that of the bishops and King of France. This was manifest in the King's instructions to Governor Murray, December 7, 1763, clause 32 — "You are not to admit of any ecclesiastir:»l juris- " diction of the See of Rome or any oiher foreign ecclesiastical juris- *' diction whatever in the province under your government. " This jealousy of the See of Rome was relaxed in after years, and religious liberty was secured to the French-Canadians by the Quebec Act of 1774. The laws of Great Britain were, by that act, so extended as to secure the fullest liberty to the Roman Catholic rjigion — liberty to a far greater extent than, at that time, was enjoyed by the Protestant dissenters from the Anglican Church in P2ngland. In the meantime, before the Quebec Act was passed, and while the British Government was deciding upon its ultimate policy, there was no hesitation as to the Jesuit order. The commission to the King's Receiver-General in 1765 shows that. His instructions read as follows : " And whereas the lands *' of several religious societies in the said province, particularly those " of the society of the Jesuits, are, or will become, part of His Majesty's " revenue, you are therefore to endeavor, by agreements to be made *' with the persons interested for the present in any of the said estates, " to take the said estates into your charge, giving unto them rcspec- " tively such competent allowance thereon for their lives, as you may *' judge proper, taking care that these lands may not be sequestered *' or alienated from His Majesty. " Again in a letter from Lord Shel- burne to Governor Carleton November 14, 1767, we read : " It has " been represented to His Majes'iy that the Jesuits of Canada make " large remittances to Italy and that tney imperceptibly diminish their " effects for that purpose * * * 'Pqq much care cannot be taken " that they do not embezzle an estate of which they*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 ii for that purpose. " It is the habit of many who live by whipping up religious and race jealousies to base the liberty enjoyed by the French Catholics in Canada upon the capitulation and the treaty. They suppress entirely the clause : *' so far as the laws of Great Britain permit." These documents are to be found in any history. The fact is well known ; and yet vague tirades about " treaty rights " still serve to mislead simple people and prejudice them against the English Government. Once again, let us say it : the people of Canada were abandoned by the French of Old France. The English laws at that time permitted very little toleration to Roman Catholics ; but the English Parliament modified its laws, If I I '•'■'■ f II S I :!; in f i ''\ eleven years after the treaiy, in deference to the religious sentiments- of the French who remained in Canada. We cannot lay too much stress u])on this fact. It is explained away, it is minimized, it is con- tradicted, but nevertheless it is true; it is plainly written in easily- accessible documents and to stand up before ignorant audiences and deny it is dishonest. Let us never be forgotten that the charter of French Catholic liberty is in an act of Parliament and not in a treaty. The act of 1774 made a new departure in Canadian history, and neces- sarily new instructions were sent to the Governor. These were dated January 3, 1775 ; the passages of present interest are the following : " That the society of Romish priests, called the Seminaries of Quebec " and Montreal, shall continue to possess and occupy their houses of " residence and all other houses and lands to which they were lawfully " entitled on the 31st September, 1759, and it shall be liwful for those " societies to fill up vacancies and admit new members according to " the rules of their foundation. * ^ * That the Society of the " Jesuits be suppressed and dissolved and no longer continued as a " body cor'porate and politic, and all their rights, possessions and " property shall be vested in us, for such purposes as we may hereafter " think fit to direct or appoint ; but we think fit to declare our royal " intention to be that the present members of the said society, as estab- " lished at Quebec, shall be allowed sufiicient stipends and provisions " during their natural lives. " Thus was the pleasure of the King made known, and so it was carried out, until, in 1800, the last Jesuit, Father Cazot, died, and the last stipend out of the JesuUs' estates ceased.. But, in the meantime, while the last Jesuits in Canada were ending their lives in peace and plenty under a Protestant King, the order was totally suppressed throughout the whole Catholic world. The storm which had been long gathering, broke in 1759, in Portugal. In 1764 in burst in France ; in 1767 in Spain. The order was totally suppres.s.ed in the European and colonial possessions of these and ail other Catholic countries, its estates confiscated, its members banished. The Catholic countries did not allow stipends for life, but drove the unfor- tunate Jesuits into exile and want. This was not the worst, fi)r on July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued the celebrated Brief Dominns ac Redcmptor nostrr, in which he sujjpressed the order throughout the world, and it remained suppressed and utterly dissolved until ff)urteen years after Father Cazot's death at (Quebec. Truly, if ever a man died without heirs it was Frt' er Cazot; and if ever there was an escheat, the Jesuits' estates would have been escheated, even if they had, not been confiscated at the concpiest. The Pope's brief is very loni'. He cites many previous instances of the suppression of religious orders by the Holy See ; he recites the many favors and privileges conceded to the Jesuits and he states that almosl from their institutfon *• there arose " in the bosom of the society divers seeds of discord and dissention, " not only among the companions but with other regular orders, the ** secular clergy, the academies, the universities, the public schools ^' and lastly even with the Princes of the states in which the society *' was received. " The Pope then recites at some length these quarrels ; the dissentions, he says, grew day by day — the accusations " multiplied " without number, especially with regard to that insatiable avidity of *' temporal possessions with which it was reproached. " Then follows an account of some abortive attempts to reform the society — " in vain," he adds, did these Pontiffs "endeavor by salutary constitutions to "*' restore peace to the Church, as well as with respect to secular affairs " with which the comjiany ought not to have interfered." After reciting some further efforts he proceeds " After so many storms, temi)csts, and ' divisions, every good man looked forward with impatience to the ■" happy day which was to restore peace and tranquillity ; but, under " the reign of Clement XIII, complaints and quarrels were multiplied " on every side, in some places dangerous seditions arose, tiunults, " discords, dissensions, scandals, which, weakening or entirely breaking " the bonds of Christian charity, excited the faithfiil to all the rage of ** party hatreds and enmities. " These and such like grievances are recited at great length. At last the conclusion comes. " After a mature " deliberation, we do, of our certain knowledge and the fulness of our " apostolical power, suppress and abalish the said company. " The Pope " abrogates their statutes," extinguishes the authority of all their officials, releases all their novices, forbids any accessions to the order, submits all who hax'e taken the last vows to the authority of the Bishops, converts their property to jiious uses accoiding to the inten- tion of the founders and the holy canci ~. and extends the operation of the Brief even to the distant missions. " Our will and meaning is that the suppression atd destruction of the said society and of all its parts shall have an immediate and instantaneous effect " under pain of the greater excommunication reserved solely to the Pope. Now then — seeing that all this had in 1773 been done and said by the Supreme Pontiff and that the Jesuits had been expelled out of all Catholic lands into orthodox Russia and Protestant Prussia, where they lived as individuals, was it strange that the King of England should, after providing so carefully for good Father Cazot, apply the Jesuits' estates to educational purposes ? for the Jesuits were a teaching order. When Father Cazot died there was no Jesuit corporate body any where throughout the world. Pius VII, in 181 1, when he reinsti- ''V ill tuted the order in Russia, calls them '* secu'ar priests, once member* "of the company of Jesus, suppressed by Clement XIV, of happy *' memory," and his bull of restoration, August 7, 1814, did not at* tempt to reinstate them in their possessions. Those possessions by the Roman, canon law as well as by the express terms of the Brief would fall into the general administration of the Church ; they cannot by the law of the Church be inherited by the present Jesuits. The corporate identity of the order is broken. In Canada it ceased to exist as a cor- poration, in 1760, by English law. By canon law it ceased to exist in 1773. In the Roman Church the order was re-incorporated in 1814. In Canada it was incorporated last year, but the corporate life has been hopelessly interf^upted. The present corporation is a new person. By canon law no prescription caii run against the Church, but the order of Jesus is not the Church of Rome, The Church of Rome existed before the Jesuits, it existed during their suppression ; not in Russia, where alone for thirty years there were avowed Jesuits, but in its old seat among the Catholic nations. The "worship according to the rites of the Roman Church" referred to in the treaty is a definite thing ; the establishment of the order of Jesus is another thing. It is an utter confusion of ideas to attempt to drag the latter into the treaty. If it be thought desirable to present a half million of dollars to the Jesuit Fathers who are working in our midst, the Legislature has the power to do it ; but let not justification be sought by confusing the facts of history. ANSWER TO THE "GAZETTE." j'.'i If:;. (The Gazette, Montreal, June 25.) To the Editor of the Gazette : Sir, — In your editorial of this morning (Friday, June 22nd) you have reproduced very nearly the same long category of historical, legal and canonico-legal inaccuracies with which a contributor to the Star favored the public in the issues bearing date of 19th May and J3th June. As I had occasion then to remark, there is no easier task than that of heaping up gratuitous assertions, but it is a long one to classify and refute them. The Star, with that Anglo-Saxon fairness which I am only too willing to suppose, as I am myself an Anglo-Canadian, is the characteristic of every man who has English blood in his veins,. , ; at id m \e published my answer in the subsequent issues of May 26th, June 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 15th and i6th. I have no reason to think that the Gazettk will be less courteous. I regret, however, that your editorial duties have not allowed you petsonally, nor the writer of the article, to take cognizance of the arguments and citations which have convinced other minds thai I have not " whipped up religious and race jealousies to base the liberty enjoyed by French Catholics in Canada upon the capitulation and the treaty," that I have much less had a recourse to " vague tirades about treaty rights ;" but have quoted the best English authorities to sustain my position, and shown to every anbiased mind that the "simple people mislead," and if you so put it, ''prejudiced agains'. the English Government" are no less personages than the then Premier of Great Britain, his solicitor and attorney-general, a li>rd high chancellor of England, and absolutely the entired body of those emi- nent men who have professedly written on the laws of nations, consti- tutional law, and the prerogatives of the Crown, Joseph Chitty himself included. I am still waiting to see if any one can point'out one single flaw in my reasoning. Un'il then I would be justified in allowing your editorial to go by unheeded. But behind you, Mr. Editor, is the expectant public, composed, in great measure, of fair minded men who would not stand by and see an injustice done. Some may be prejudiced by early education against the Society of Jesus, but, whatever be their prejudices, they would, even where there is question of the much abused order, be ready to give the devii his due. The attack made upon the just claims of the society of Jesuits in your journal is derived ostensibly from two sources, canon and iniblic law. There is, furthermore, an inter-mixture of false ai)])reciations, historically speaking, and a latent but strong ajjpeal to popular preju- dice ; and this in the way of presenting the brief of suppression. I am loath to believe that your article was inspired by one who is of our own creed. My instinct, however, leads me to ascribe it to some- body noi unknown in the family circle of the contributor to the Sar. For the Protestant public, whom I know to be fairly inclined to see justice done, I shall furnish sufficient proofs. For the Catholic public, I know the immense majority to be in sympatliy with the cause I sustain. Well educated Catholics, if they be at all familiar with the history of Europe of that period, know full well by what secret influences the suppression of the Jesuits was brought about, if not, it would be well for them to consult the fifth volume of Cretineau-Joly's History of the Society of Jesus. They know, moreover, what was the real mind of the Roman Pontiff's previous to the suppression, what that of every IFI"- i L I jl PI . ll t I ! I i! li !: y 1 ' k '1 .i !; 8 succeeding Pope until the present venerable occupant of the Holy See, in the brief Dolenins inter, gave back to the society all its privileges after having bestowed upon it unbounded praise. The position of the Catholic, who assails the society of Jesus, as a body, is not an enviable one, even though he assail it under a non- Catholic mask. The words of Leo XIII., in the above mentioned brief, show that that Catholic is not in harmony of sentiment with the one he looks upon as Christ's vicar on earth. The words of Gregory XVI. to Mgr. AffrCj Archbishop of Paris, should be a warning. " We are aware that this society (of Jesus) is looked upon by the m(ire prudent and fervent among Catholics as having deserved well of the Catholic cause, and for that very reason is it held in his^h esteem by this Holy See ; we are aware it is deemed of bad repute among those who are unbelievers, or who have little sympathy with the authority of holy church, and who after this, Venerable Brother, might well boast the support of your name to accredit their calumnies against it." As the proofs I have»already given in the Star remain unshaken, and hold good also against what has appeared in the columns of the Gazette, I do not see why I should inliict a repetition of my answer on a patient public ; more especially as they will shortly be able to procure the whole correspondence in pamphlet Allow me, therefore, Mr. Editor, to change the form of my answer. I am ready, in your next issue, to make good what follows : 1. In principle, the assumed right of seizing the Jesuits' estates, and the actual seizure, in part or in whole, was unwarrantable, (See 3.) 2. And therefore, all subsequent acts concerning these estates, such as transfers, apjiropriations, donations or sales, based upon the same, are equally unwarrantable. 3. This assumed rignt, and in fact the actual seizures could be valid only I. By right of conquest, (See 4> or II. By right of escheat. (See 13, pnge 9.) Now neither of these titles is valid in the case of the Jesuits' estates. (See 4 and 13.) I. jji ■il 4. The title of Conquest is not valid in the matter of the seizure of the Jesuits' estates. (See 5 — 12.) 5. ^wA firstly the seizure is not valid by the general right of con- guest ,■ (See 6, pages 9 and 22.) 9 6. For by natural law, and by the laws regulating ihe mutual rela- tions between Sovereign and subject, the rightof property of individuals and of bodies corporate and politic may not arbitrarily be invaded by the Sovereign (page 48). 7. For by the common accord of all authorities on the Laws of Nations, the general right of Conquest confers the right of sovereignty alone, and no others than those which the supplanted Sovereign pre- viously possessed (pages 22 to 26). 8. Now, the Society of Jesuits was a body corporate and politic, legally recognized as such by (a) France before and at the Conquest (pages 26, 27, 28), and by (b) England at and after the Conquest (pages 29, 30). 9. And that furthermore such estates are church property (pages 32, 33)- (a) To which the King of France previously had and could have no legitimate title (page 33) ; (b) And to which, consequently the King of England, who supplanted him, could have no legitimate title (pages 22 to 26, 44 to 48). 10. And that the general right of Conquest imposes the duty of maintaining the existing law.s of property (pages ^;^, 24, 25) ; (a) And by these laws their estates were secu:ed to them (27,28,33). 11. That furthermore, as a statute cannot render void a treaty, the clause in parenthesis in Art. VIII., of Act 14 Geo. III., c. 83 (the "'Quebec Act") is null and void, and moreover frustrated by its own Art. Ill (pages 34, 35). 12. And secondly the seizure of the Jesuits' estates is not valid by the right of this particular conquest as set forth, in the case of Canada, by the terms of the Capitulations and Treaty (pages 36 to 47;. II. 13. The title by escheat is not valid, nor was it urged, in the matter of the seizure of the Jesuits' estates (page 47) ; 14. For by an unwarrantable proceeding the administration deprived them of the chances of succession by inhibiting them from receiving new members (pages 48 to 50) ; 15. For by the right of conquest the King of England acquired the sole rights of the King of France, who could not, even by lawful escheat, become possessor or usufructuary of church property (No. 7a & No. 9a). 16. What concerns vacant benefices in art. xxxv. of Act 31, George III., chap. 31, ("Constitutional Act") is at variance with the afore- said principles of the laws of nations concerning the rights acquired If li il I PI 10 by conquest, and in direct contravention of the articles of the capitu- lation, and of the definitive treaty (No. 7 and No. 9a)*. If, Mr. Editor, after I have made good what precedes, the writer of the article finds some link missing let him point it out, or state what else he would have me prove. Yours, ets., U. E. L. Montreal, June 22, 1888. [" U. E. L." is astray in his idv-a as to the writer 6f the article he criticizes. That, however, is an indifferent matter. His letter is inserted as a statement of the side of the case opposite to that taken by this paper. That we do not coincide in its views need not be stated, and we will take an early occasion to show wherein they are, as we see them, defective, and where " U. E. L." fails to establish the rights now claimed on behalf of the reorganized society. In the meantime atten- tion is directed to the synopsis in another column of Hon. Mr. Mercier's resolutions before the Legislature which in some points bear upon .'* U. E. L's" arguments. — Ed. Gazette.] SECOND ARTICLE OF THE " GAZETTE." r nil ml hi i' i ■\ III (The Gazette, /////^ 25, 1888.) On every ground from which the question can be regarded, it cannot but be considered unfortunate that the present Premier of this pro- vince should have undertaken the revival of the Jesuits' claims. There is probably no country in the world in which the society of Jesus has enjoyed so fair a reputation and so large a share of good-will 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 period in our annals. " Amid the snow of Hudson's Bay, among the woody islets and beautiful inlets of the St. Lawrence, by the council fires of the Hurons and Algonquins, at the sources of the Mississipi, where first of the white man, their eyes looked upon the Falls of St, Anthony, and then traced down the course of the bounding river as it rushed onward to earn its title of " Father of waters," on the vast prairies of lilinois and Missouri, among the blue hills which hem in the salubrious dwellings of the Cherokees, and in the thick canebrakes of Louisiana — everywhere were * For positive claim of the Jesuits see p«ige 50. 11 found the niembers of the society of Jesus." Tlie 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. Their devotion and heroism cast into the shade (at least, for Canadian readers) those less commendable qualities and proceedings which, in other parts of the world, aroused the suspicion or the anger of governments and communities. If we except certain rivalries and ambitions which marked some passages in their career, the members of the order in Canada have never forfeited that respect which is due to the faithful prosecution of noble aims. When Father Casot died in March, 1800, he was regretted by rich and poor alike. The Quebec Gazette described his death as a public calamity, and such it doubtless was to hundreds of poor people who had benefited by his charities. At that time the order had no legal recognition in any Ca- tholic country. Even before the taking of Quebec the storm of indig- nation that had been threatening them in Europe had begun to burst upon their heads. The members of the order had been driven by Pombal from Portugal and its colonies in September, 1759 ; France and Spain followed the example a few years later (1767), and Napoleon and the Duchy of Parma expelled them in the ensuing year. The final blow fell in 1773, when the society was suppressed by the Pope (Cle- ment XIV). Being thus denied the protection of Roman Catholic Christendom, the Jesuits betook themselves to Prussia and Russia, in the latter of which countries they made their head quarters. A con- gregation of cardinals was appointed to take possession of the aban- doned temporalities of the society. The general, Lorenzo Ricci, having died in prison in 1775, a Pole named Cyernicwicz was elected in his stead with the'title of Vii'ar-General. Two other Poles held the same title, the latter of whom, Francis Xavier Kareu, was created "General m Russia "in 1801 by Pope Pius VII. It was not till 1814, however, that the society was restored to corporate legal existence. Only a small number of Jesuits remained in Canada after the capi- tulation. Fathers Noel, Macquet, de Villeneuve, Glapion, Well and Casot are among the names on the list- handed down, to us. They taught school down to the year 1776. Young persons were given ins- truction in reading, writing and arithmetic ; and there were no restric- tions as to admission. All who chose to send ther children were free to do so. Thus, by the testimony of the Bishop of Quebec, members of the order were recognized even after the publication of the brief of suppression, and it was not until the last of them had died that the Crown proceeded to take possession of the estates. This was in accor- dance with a suggestion of Solicitor-General Wedderburne, who, in V fTTF 1 1^ : V ■ n i ■\ I ' 12 giving his opinion on the state of Canada, in December, 1772, «ai(^ that it was " equally just and expedient in this instance to assert the sovereignty of the King, and to declare that the lands of the Jesuits are vested in His Majesty, allowing at the same time to the Jesuits now residing in Canada liberal pensions out of the incomes of their estates. " LInder all the circumstances, it can hardly be denied that the Government dealt generously with them. As to the addresses presented again and again by the people of the province, or th ir representatives, touching the disposal of those estates, all that they asked for wa^'that they should be devoted to the diffusion of (.(lucation. In the petition of 1828 it is incidentally stated that the * said order was never the proprietor of the said college and estates, but merely its deijository." In 1831, after a vague or evasive reply hid been more than once returned to interpellations on the subject, an ac was- jiasse 1 appropriating the revenues of the Jesuits' estates < xclusively to educational purpos.'s. If the dis|)osition of the property t uis determined on did not meet, as to detail, with universal approval i was generally acquiesced in as the bcsl solution attainable of a difficult problem. It was in 1842 that the Jesuits renewed the broken tradition of their nami m New France. Fathers Chazelle, Martin, 'IVlliL-r, Hanipaux, Luiset and Duranqviet arrived in Canada in the month of May of that year. In September, 1848, the college of St. Mary was opened in this city and higher education was once more, to some extent at least, in the hands of the order. Canada is now an independent i)rovince, and all the fathers .„re, we iielieve, natives of the country. The good which the order has accom- ])lished during the last hall century is gratefully acknowledged. As the old Jesuits began with the Christian heroism of Brebojuf and Jogues, and closed with the gentle charities of Father Casot, so have their mo- dern successors acquitted themselves with honor in their more tranquil role of educationists. They have already received substantial evidence of the esteem in which they are held and of the value set on their ser- vices to society. The Protestants of Canada regard them with little of that distrust which is their portion sometimes even in Catholic coun- tries. As for iheir relations with the orders of their own church and with the secular clergy it is not for us to meddle with them. We cannot but feel, nevertheless, that, even on the grounds of worldly wisdom, Mr. Mercier is badly mistaken if he dreams of serving his former tutors by raising from its grave this dead issue of a day that is past. Had Canada remained a French province, need we say that such a claim would have been unheard of? That, doubtless, is beside the question, and comparisons are proverbially odious. But setting the Crown and its 13 actual representatives aside, and takingaccount simply of the commun- ion to which M. Mercier belongs, is it wise or generous or just to cast this apple of discord among the people of this province? Whut pur- pose can it serve save to re-open old sores, to revive old grudges, to reawaken ancient feuds ! Surely to use his position in that way is the policy of neither a statesman nor a patriot. 1 THIRD ARTICLE OF THE " GAZETTE." (The Gazette, June 27, 1888.) The Jesuits' Estates Again. On Monday last we published a letter, signed ** U. E. L." upon the subject of the Jesuits' estates, in which exception was taken to our editorial of the Friday previous. We were glad to give space to the letter. There is nothing we desire more than the candid discussion of every point of this imi)ortant question, but we wish to confine the dis- cussion, so far as we are concerned, to the vital issues, and that is the reason why we could not enter upon the quagmire of irrelevant matter which our correspondent had previously ojjcned up in the twenty columns of small print which he had contributed to the Star. We repeat that the facts lie in small compass and can be grasped by any layman. Our correspondent wishes to lead us into the uncertain regions of the text writers upon international law. The question, in so far as it is a legal one, is one of definite law — of the municipal laws of France and England, and of the Canon law of Rome, but chiefly, is it a question of simple fact. In diverting his readers into these regions where every principle is disi)uted — where there are no formu- lated decisions, and where irresponsible writers, of varying authority in different nations, can be quoted in sujiport of almost any i>ro])osi- tion, " U. E. T-." has led attention away from the essential points. The reader is insensibly beguiled away fiom the facts, and is apt to suppose that where so much is said there must be a great deal of reason ; whereas, usually, the very opposite is the correct conclusion. When a discussion has got so far adrift, it complicates it more to follow out the numerous false issues raised. The only reasonable method is to return to the central facts. The tendency of "U. E. L." to lead his readers off into side issues is even more strongly marked in his letter. Whether the writer of this <.^^ t t « I f , i h' i lit 14 or that article in the editorial columns of the GAZtTTK is a Protestant or a Catholic is not important. Nor is it important whether he is, or is not, of the same family as some writer in the S/ar. Such enquiries are not only contrary to the etiquette of press discussion but they are irrelevant to the subject in hand. The only rhetorical value they can possess might possibly be to raise some religious or personal prejudice and so obscure the force of an opposing argument. It is not less wanting in candour for "U. E. L." to charge us with repeating gratuitous assertions. We refer our readers to our issue of Friday, June 22nd. It will, we think, be found, that we have made very few assertions. We have allowed the documents — ihe Capitula- tion and the Treaty — to make the assertions. We have for the most jjart quoted the words of great state officials. The assertions m our article were chiefly those of a Pope. Let not the editor of the Gazette be held to account for them. And here we would remark that we shall never seek to be more Catholic than the Pope. It is as much an error to transgress in excess as in defect, and we warn "U. E. L." that, in setting up Pope against Pope, he is overstepping the limits of Catholic duty. He charges us with assailing the Jesuit order, when we quote the Brief Dominus ac Hedemptor nosier, and he says we are " not in harmony with Leo XIII., Christ's vicar on earth". Does *' U. E. L." mean to say that Clement XIV. was not equally Christ's vicar on earth? He insinuates that Pope Clement did not state the facts in his Brief. He refers us to Mr. Creti- neau-joly to learn the unworthy mot'ves which actuated this Pope. We are not disposed to go a-field after Mr. Cretineau-Joly. We are inclined, in matters concerning the Roman Church, to believe that the Pontiff who is its earthly head tells the truth, and we are not disposed to ques- tion his motives. We resign that to the semi-Protestant school who are always setting up their private judgments against any Papal decree they may not approve of — who agree with the Pope when he agrees with them, and who yet assume to lecture better Catholics than themselves, as if they alone were the Church and all Catholic truth was centered in them. We are not disposed to learn our catechism from amateur Popes. If " U. E. L." prefers to believe that the whole Catholic world, the Pope included was wrong ; and that the truth retired to Russia with the Jesuits who went there, we will not lecture him; we would only remark that his views of Catholicity are somewhat pecu- liar. The theory which we maintained has the merit of accepting the Briefs of all the Popes. We do not yield to " U E. L." in respect for the learned and able Pontiff who now occupies the Holy See. We acknowl- 15 edge to the uttermost the self denying zeal of the Jesuit Fathers who carried the cross into the wilderness and who faced with unshrinking courage savages more like demons than men in their cruelty. We have not assailed the |)resent Jesuit order. We have simj)ly maintained that the Jesuit order, as it existed, was utterly and totally supressed /// a/l its parts hy \.\\t highest ecclesiastical and civil powers, and that the present Jesuit order is a new corporation and cannot inher.it the property of a previous body whose corporate life became extinct forty years previously. We spare our readers an excursus into the law of corporations. The application of that law will at once suggest itself. We observe in the resolutions submitted to the House that some such view is underlying them ; for the indemnity is to be paid, not according to the usual courr,r of Canon Law, to the ecclesiastical authorities of the Roman Church in Canada ; not according to the decision of the Holy Father as expressed in the Cardinal Prefect's letter of March ist, 1888, to be" deposited and left at the free disposal of the Holy See"; but " in accordance with the exact terms" laid down by Mr. Mercier, who evidently desires to compel the Pope to give the money to the Jesuits — an edifying position for such zealous devotees of the su])reme au- thority of the Sovereign Pontiff! If the title of the present order of Jesuits is as clear as " U. E. L." pretends, why cannot the indemnity be paid to them ? Our correspondent "U. E. L." asserts that " the assumed right of the king " to confiscate the estates of the former Jesuits was not vulid. If he means that the King ougnt not to have done it, we shall not stop to discuss a matter of private opinion, legal or religious ; but as he asserts that he has proved his point by the highest English legal autho- rity we would demur and cite the opinion u|)on this very issue given in 1765 by the King's Advocate, Dr. .Marriott, to the Attorney and Solicitor General in London : " By virtue of the natural law of arms and conquest of countries, " confirmed by acts of the law of nations by solemn cession and gua- '• ranty, the possessions of the society lost, of course, all civil protec- " tion by the fate of war ; but much more so by the only jjower whose " authority and intervention could have preserved the property of " these ])ossessions to their supposed owners having withdrawn its " tolerance and protection and deserted them as a derelict xix. the mercy " and entirely free disposition of the Crown of Great Britain, by making " no provision in the articles of cession to serve the pretended rights " of the community of Jesuits, nor, indeed, of any other ecclesiastical " community." In view of such an authority as this, and of the spec- ial reserve of Amherst at the capitulation, that the property of the 16 Jesuits should be at the '' oleasure of the King," what are we to think of " U. E. L.'s " law ? Aiia :vhat are we to think of his assertion that England at and after the conquest lecognized the order of Jesus as a corpor-'tion, when the extracts given in our preceeding article from the King's instructions to the Governors uom the first forbade such recognition, and when " U. E. L." admits that no new members were permitted to join ? Again, we come to another proposition in law. " U. E. L." says that " a statute cannot annul a treaty." We do not propose to waste time in discussing this, because the proposition is irrelevant. There is no treaty to annul. We refer to this statement to show how U. E. L's. method of drawing a red herring across the trail is apt to lead his read- ers off on a false scent. Surely the unsophisticated would be led to. think that there is something in the treaty of cession bearing on the question ! Surely there is something which the act in question sought to annul. Alas for the candour of those who are eternally talking of the Treaty, they never quote it. We did, and we now do it again ; for it is the key of the whole question. We wish our readers to know that Treaty. It reads : — I' h . ! (( <( (( (( (( (< (> «( l< (( t( " His Britannic Majesty agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will consequently givf^ the most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects may pro- fess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Roman Church as far as the laws of the Great Britain permit. His Britan- nic Majesty also agrees that the French inhabitants, or others who had been the subjects of the most Christian King in Canada, may retire \Vith all safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper and may sell their estates, provided it be to subjects of His Britannic Majesty y and bring away their eflects, as well as their persons, without being restrained in their emigration under any pretence whatever, excei)t that of debts or of criminal prosecution ; ihe term limited for this emigration shall be fixed for the space of eighteen months to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty." There it h— absolutely every word bearing on the question. The rest of it refe.s to boundaries and to the cession and guarantee of the rights of sovereignty to the King of England. If there is anything else let somebody print it, so that the public may know it ; and, if not — in the name of all fairness let this parrot-like iteration cease. This treaty has been like an .y quantity in algebra. It has been invoked for the most preposterous propositions. It is supposed to contain the most prodigious stipulations ; but there it is, the most unlearned and ignorant can comprehend it. We decline further comment upon it ; again we If -say that the act commonly called the Quebec Act, is the charter of French-Canadian civil and religious liberty. We pass now to some propositions concerning " escheats." We are informed that the King of England had no right of escheat because he gained by the cession only the rights of the King of France, who had no right of escheat, in ecclesiastical matters. The law of a-ms admits of no such nice distinction. The French governor endeavored to obtain, under article 42 of the Capitulation, a concession of the French laws and usages. The English commander refused it, saying in reply, that the Canadians would " become subjects of the king." Whatever the rights of the King of England might have been they could not, therefore, have been curtailed at the Conquest. The cession transferred formally all the rights of the King of France ; it could not limit the prerogatives of the victor unless so stipulated. The King of England conceded only the freedom of worship to the extent of the English law at the time. The king might have introduced the English civil law into Canada, and, as a matter of fact, that law was for a few years supposed to be introduced and actually administered until, by the Quebec Act (not the treaty), the final decision was made. The English criminal law was introduced, and the French civil law was recognized and established by the same statute ; but from the operation of the same statute, the estates of the religious were specially, in its own terms, excepted. Consequently, the prerogatives of the King of England, in respect to these special estates, were not limited by any ecclesiastical laws which might have bound the King of France ; and his prerogative of escheat remained intact to its full extent. In any event, the title of the present Jesuit order would not be profited ; for, if the canon law had its full force, these estates would have fallen into the general administration of the Roman Church in Canada. Either, then, the property, in failure of heirs, reverted to the Crown as " over- lord," or by Canon law it should have passed in trust to the Koman Bishop of Quebec for the general purposes of the church. It is not now important to decide which is the correct view for the province of Quebec has got possession, and is going to settle the matter in some way. But if the money he paid to the wrong party, the whole question may be revived in another hundred years ; because the claims of the Church can never be prescribed. In our issue of Monday last the names of the Jesuits of the old order who remained in Canada are given. The last of them. Father Casot, died in 1800. As a corporate body they had not been recognized. U. E. L. asserts that by " an unwarrantable proceeding the Adminis- " tration deprived them of the chances of succession by inhibiting 2 \ :!:.! fi m t 'W III I is re them from receiving new members." This same proceeding was takei> by the King of France in 1764, and by the Pope in 1773. The brief says, " we do hereby forbid the reception of any person to the said so- " cieiy, the iioviciate or habit thereof." This prohibition lasted from 1773 to 1815 — for forty-two years. During that period no law, civil or ecclesiastical, existed under which accessions could have been made to the Order of Jesuits. For these reasons, therefore, we believe that the corporate life of the Society of Jesus has been fatally interrupted, and that the present society is a new body. We have not assailed either the one or the other. The representatives of the people of this province have the power to vote what they like to whom they please. We have simply protested against the suppression and perversion of plain historical facts. The liberality of the English Government in T774was far in advance of anything then known and // 7vas not exacted either by the Capitulation or the Treaty. No one in Canada one hundred years ago dreamed of disputing facts so elementary. Therefore, it was to borrow the words of the Cardinal Prefect Antonelli, in a letter written to the Bishops of Ireland in 1791, that Canada, " filled as it is with innume- " rable Catholics, although sorely tempted, and not yet forgetful of " the old French Government, remained most faithful in its allegiance •' to England." ANSWER TO THE " GAZETTE."— 0;///«//<'i, by order of Louis XV., fifty-one cardinals, archbishops and bishops met, under the presidency of Cardinal de Luynes, to report on four points, the first of which referred to the advantages and disadvantages accruing to the realm from the labors of the Jesuits ; the fourth, what limits might be set to the General's authority. For, to say the least, it would be an undignified rebuff to be told that, after a month's study of the constitutions, with the exception of six of the assembly, they unanimously repoited in favor of the Jesuits and of their institute ; and that feeble minority, in spite of Choiseul's influence, could be brought to suggest but some slight modifications ; one alone, Frangois de Fitzjames, bishop of Soissons, demanding, in favor of his Jansenist friends, the entire suppression of the Jesuits. It would indeed be a revelation if •' the bishops of France " were to dwindle down and be condensed in the personality cf Fitzjames of Soissons. Mr. Editor, it was in an unguarded moment that the writer of your leader hazarded that assertion. For he must have known that in some library, on whose shelves is to be found a history treating of the sup- pression of the Jesuits, some busy-body would ferret out the letter (Paris, April 24, 1774) of Christophe de Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, in answer to Clement XlV's brief. Its contents might impugn the writer's historical accuracy, though 1 would be diffident in so doing, owing to the marked superiority of hij tone. Here then is an extract, for I regiet that the length of the letter prevents its being published in full : " This brief is nothing more than a personal and private judgment * * * * Qn the other hand, Holy Father, it is not possible that I should endeavor to prevail upon the clergy to accept it. I would not be listened to on this point, were I even so ill-advised as to wish to extend to it the the concurrence of my ministry, which I would thereby dishonor. The recollection is still too vivid of that general assembly, which I had the honor of convoking, in compliance with His Majesty's orders, for the purpose of enquiring into the necessity and utility of the Jesuits, the purity of their doctrine, etc. In undertaking such a task I would intlict a very notable injury on the religion, the zeal, the enlightenment and the rectitude with which those prelates laid before the King their way of thinking concerning the very points which are at variance with, and which are reduced to naught by chis brief of destruction. It is true that, if it must be shown that it was necessary to go to such lengths, glossing over this destruction with the specious pretext of peace which could not co-exist with the society, that same pretext, Holy Father, at most would suffice to destroy all those other 21 bodies jealous of it, and canonize the society without further proof : and it is that very pretext which authorizes us to form of the brief in question a most accurate but most damaging judgment. " For what is that peace which is given out as incompatible with the society ? The thought alone is appalling, and we shall never understand how such a motive could have had strength sufficient ever to have induced your Holiness to adopt so hazardous, so perilous and so detrimental a measure. Certainly that peace which is irreconcilable with the co-existence of the society is that which Jesus Christ calls insidious, false and deceitful ; in a word, that to which the name only is given, but which is not peace : Pax, pax, et non erat pax ; that peace which vice and libertinism affect, recognizing it as their mother ; which is never allied to virtue, which on the contrary was ever inimical to piety. It is precisely against such a peace that the Jesuits, in the four quarters of the globe, have persistently declared a bitter war, relentless and sanguinary, and waged with the utmost vigor and most complete success. It is against a peace like this that they have directed their vigils, their attention, their watchfulness, preferring painful labors to effeminate and barren ease. It is to exterminate it that they have sacrificed their talents, devoted their zeal and the resources of their eloquence, desirous of barring every entrance by which it would force its way and work havoc within the very pale of Christiai>ity ***** heedless of the greatest perils, counting on no other reward for their zeal and for their heaven-blest journeyings than the hatred of libertines and the persecutions of the wicked," etc.. etc. I am far from endorsing all that Christoi)he de Beaumont indites in his letter, but he certainly knew, with his hand on the pulse of the Church of France, what were the dispositions of her prelates. The society was suppressed thanks to the iiTi]jlacible hostility and the vile calumnies of a Pombal and a Choiseul. The courts of F^urope, deluded by these unscrupulous ministers, brought all the weight of royalty to bear upon the Holy See. But they, in their turn, were soon swept away by the breath of the Revolution, and Europe was deluged in blood. The awakening came at last, and th'in from every quarter of the habitable world poured in upon the Holy See sujjplications to restore the Order to itfe former state. It was not dead. At the beck of the Pontiff it came forth from the depths of Russia, equipped as of old and under the leadership of its General, the true successor of Ricci, who, heart broken, had breathed his last in the castle of San Angelo. The words of Pius VII, in the bull Solicitudo Omnium show what the feeling was amongst the bishops not only of France but of the Catholic world. HI I 22 3 :« 5'; P J " Earnest and persistent supplications for the restitution of the same Society of Jesus, supported by the all but unanimous approval of the whole Christian world, reach us daily from our venerable brethren archbishops and bishops, and from every class and assembly of influential persons, especially since the report has everywhere gone abroad of the plentiful fruits which this society has borne in the above mentioned regions " (Russia and the Two Sicilies). A painstaking judge would hesitate to tell us that " in Canada the society ceased to exist as a corporation in 1760 by English law," for it would imply that the King did a meaningless and silly thing, as the writev makes His Majesty say in 1775 : We will " that the Society of the Jesuits be suppressed and dissolved and no longer continued as a body corjwrate and politic. ..but we think fit to declare our royal inten- tion to be that the present members of the said society, as established at Quebec, shall be allowed sufficient stipends," etc. If its corporate life had become extinct in 1760 by English law, why attempt to kill it again in 1775? — though I question this latter date, as the royal instruc- tions of 1 79 1 contain almost verbatim the same decree. In any case it is evident that if the society consented finally to die, it " died hard." It would be fairly impossible, Mr. Editor, to pick out the many other inaccuracies contained in the leader of the 22nd, for it would crowd out of your excellent paper much other interesting matter. However, before redeeming the promise made in my first letter, I desire to say that your leader of June 25th is conceived in a far more liberal spirit and by one better up in the matter. The-e are few inac- curacies, though what few there are are not unimportant. He admits that the question was a " difficult problem," and that " it is doubt'ess beside the question " to ask would the claim have been heard of had Canada remained a French province ? Without wishing to answer that question it would be well not to forget the " raison d'etre " of the French concordat of 1801. I. (1-4 see page S.) 5. By title of " conquest in general," according to the Laws of Nations, a conqueror has no right to the private properties of citizens or of authorized corporations. 6. 7. The opinion of all the great authorities on the Law of Nations is uniform on this point. There is not one discordant voice. 23 rs De Vattel. — Law of Nations (Chitty) B. Ill, C. 13, sec. 199 : " The •conqueror, who lakes a town or province from his enemy, cannot justly -acquire over it any other riglits than such as belonged to the sovereign against whom he has taken up arms. War authorizes him to possess himself of what belongs to his enemy ; if he de|ritam, was made in favor of l)roperiy ; m;ide in favor of religion ; made in favor of the several reli- gious ordcrsy (Cavendish — UeLales, etc., 1774. pg. 27, 28.) There is a true ring of conviction in these words, and no room for doubt or hesitancy ; yet in them is embodied the legal opinion of the highest authority on these matters in England at the time in which they were uttered. And how can he speak so positively of the treaty, as confirmatory of the capitulation, since the divers articles of the latter are not rch. arsed in full, and the good pleasure of the King has appa- rently not been made known as to several of the articles ? The King's silence is rightly interpreted to mean that he can take no exception to one who signed, in his name, without overstejiping his powers, arti- cles of capitulation which become then inviolable. Things remain as 46 they were, if in provisions, as to his assent, the King remains silent; in which case, the general maxim finds its application : melior est con- ditio possidentis. However this right oi' possession is indirectly confirmed by the treaty, when for the Jesuits and others it was made facultative or optional to sell their estates. They were not, of course, obliged to do so, but de facto the Society of Jesus, on the 5th May, 1764, sold 172 arpents, a large portion of St. La»vrence ward in Montreal, to sieur Plessis Belair (See Terrier des Seigneurs de Montreal, at that date), and this sale was effected with due authorization. " Vente par le Supe- rieur des J^suites de la mission de Montreal, autorisee par acte de jus- tice a Charles Plessis Belair i chives, Ottawa, series Q., vol. ^ d'une terre, etc." (See Canadian Ar- 50, A. page 188.) Another contract of donation was passed by the Jesuits in favor of the Ursulines of Quebec as late as the 24th April, 1788. (See report 1824, page 123). In the report of two commissioners of the nine appointed to ascer- tain, among other points, what portion of the Jesuits' estates the King might in justice grant to Lord Amherst, and as rehearsed in the report of Alexander Gray and J. Williams, it is said : " lis (le? com- missaires) observent aussi qu'il est de notori6td publique que par diff6- rents jugements des cours de justice en cette Province ils (les Jesuites) ont ete maintenus dans leur droits, et qu'a leur connaissance ils conti- nuent a ])osseder tontes les dites terres, a I'exceptien d'une partie du College de Quebec, maintenant occupd comme magasin des provisions du Roi, et comme casernes pour une partie de la garnison." (Rap. 1824, p. 93». Nor can any adverse conclut'on be drawn from the clause in the treaty, even if it affected the matter in hand, and which provides for the execution of the terms of the treaty " as far as the laivs of Great Britain permit'' English penal and common law as such do not hold in the Colonies. For the penal laws had no existence whatever in Canada. Chitty goes still further : — " Hence it is clear that, generally speaking, the com- mon law of England does not, as such, hold ni the British colonies," (Prerogat, ch. HI, page 32.) Therefore it would not follow that because tde Jesuits vveie an illegal society in England they were illegal also in Canada. 47 Lord North, the then premier, effectually disposed of that objection m his speech in the House of Commons on the 26th May 1774- «. it establish he hP'"-°" '^ rr "^^">' ^'^'^ ^''^y'''' ^hat the b/st way to establish the happiness of the inhabitants is to give them their own laws as far as relates to their own possessions. Their possess on s were marked out to them at the time of the treaty ; to give^hem those l"'/ likewise is L m^re than .t 1 1 ^^Z^^^^S^ I'y I e^fy *' j^ th Sws 0-f Grr/lf 7'"V"'' ^"'-^^^ ''• ^°^^' ^h-' ^« no'dou^fthat tne Jaws of Great Britain do permit the very full and free exercise nf any religion, different from that of the Church of England In 'nv of S CatdT" ' rSeTnJh' } '^^^"'^"'' ^^^^ ''' °"Sht notto "extend Xm to Lanada. (See Debates 1 7 7 4, Pg. 1 1 and 1 2. Conf. also page 63. } There yet remains the question of escheat. Yours, etc., Montreal, 28th June, 1888. U. E. L. ANSWER TO THE "GAZETTE,"_C^,,//«^,^. ( T/ie Gazette, /u/j> 5 18S8. J To the Editor of the Gazette : .SiR,_I have greatly condensed this last portion of my argument in avor of the cla.ms of the Society of Jesus to their old estates I hope I have not sacrificed clearness to brevity; but I feel that should I give It in extenso, I would be trespassing on your valuable space. It will be sufficient, however to mark out the main outline of the reasoning for II 13. The title by escheat is not vaUd, nor was it urged in the matter of the Jesuits' Estates. According to civil law, and where church property is not protected by canon law or by treaty, the King at the demise of the last heir, or 43 S 1 11 member of a corporation, is said to become possessor by escheat. This does not absohitely hold good in the case of religious or eleemo- synary corporations, even according to English law, as behests and endowments revert to the original donors. But the case of the Jesuits' estates is complicated by the fact that the King of England, by the laws of nations and treaty stipulations, could claim as his own those rights only the King of France enjoyed, and as the latter could have no claim on vacant ecclesiastical property, the King of Eiigland very logically had none. Be these reasons ever so cogent, the most tangible however is that by an unjustifiable inhibition to receive new members into the order, on the part of the administration, all title through escheat is invalidated, as far as the actual holders of the Jesuits' estates are concerned. In their case resort may be had to ordinary law remedies. A corporate body cannot be destroyed by the ruler, in virtue of his Royal prerogative alone. Neither was the King of Francee nor the King of England in virtue of his Royal prerogative alone empowered to destroy a corporation he had once sanctioned, and to deprive it of its franchise. Now preventing the Society from receiving new members was gradually but surely to destroy it. Here are the principles accepted by jurists who treat of this matter: " In its more extensive sense the term ' franchise' signifies every description of political right which a freeman may enjoy and exercise. Being derived from the Crown, these franchises can in general only arise and be claimed by royal grant or by prescription which supposes It. They may be vested either in natural persons or bodies politic, in one man or in many. But the same identical franchise that has been before granted to one cannot be granted to another for that would prejudice the former grant. It is a clear ])rinciple that the King can- not by his mere prerogative diminish or destroy immunities once con- ferred and vested in a sul)ject by royal grant. " fChitty, on the Pre- rogatives ot the Crown, C.h. VIII., No. I. page 119.J " It is admitted on all hands that the charter by which a body is incor])orated must be accepted as it is offered that they may reject a new charter /// toto is indubitable ; because the King cannot take away, abridge or alter liberties or privileges granted by him or his predecessor without the consent of the individuals holding them." (Ibid. No 2, pg. 125.) 49 " It is a principle in law that the King is bound by his own or his .ancestors' grants, and cannot therefore, by his mere prerogative take away any vested immunities and privileges. But a corporation may be dissolved by surrendering its franchise into the hands of the King though legal dissolution is not occasioned thereby, and the charter operates till the surrender be enrolled, because the king can take nothing but by matter of record without enrolement. (Ibid. p. 132.) 14. Proof that the Crown inhibited the Jesuits from receiving new members. Consequently the title of the province to the estates by escheat untenable. As we have already made good, on the best legal authority, that it is not within the mere prerogative of the Crown to diminish or destroy immunities once conferred on corporations, nor take away, abridge, nor alter any liberties or privileges granted by him or his predecessors fjos. Chitty, Prerogatives of the Crown, ch. 8. Edit. London, 1820, p. 119, 125, 132J; and as the Society of Jesus was a recognized body corporate, as previously proven, the action of the Imperial authorities in preventing the accession of new members was ultra zvm and wholly unwarrani.ible. Any subsequent advantage accruing to the Crown from such an illegal proceeding is invalid in law. It remains simply to show that such was the case. As a matter of fact, it is a historical certainty that after the conquest no new members were received into the Society of Jesus ; that this was the result of an inhibition on the par4; of the Crown is proven by the two following documents. ' ^ On the 15th November, 1772, Mgr. Briand, bishop of Quebec, in reference to the Jesuits, thus wrote to Cardinal Castelli : " The English have not molested thcni in Canada and together witii the Recollets, they here serve the church with great edification. But neither the former nor the latter have leave to receive new subjects. I have asked that permission of the King of Great Britain, in an address signed by the clergy and the people. I fear much that I shall not obtain it, for two years have already gone by, and I have received no answer." {Archives de I'Archeveche, Quebecj The i)ro- hibition was renewed later on in 1791. In the Royal instructions of the 16th September of that year the following passage occurs : "It is also our will and pleasure that all other religious seminaries and communities (that of the Jesuits only excepted) do for the present and until we can be more fully informed of the true state of them, and how far thiey are or are not essential to the free exercise of the religion of the church of Rome, as allowed ?tKnBt will lay bare the sophistry of the Gazette, whose main object throughout the discussion was, as a party paper, rather to injure the Hon. Mr. Mercier than to secure the hi- [fji If :i; If' i:; 60 triumph of truth. A line of conduct in marked contrast to that adopted by the Star. To the Editor of the Gazette. Sir, — Driven from the region of principles, your contributor in the Gazette of July 7, would take refuge in the region of facts : " The opinions of lawyers (he should say law authorities), are of little use unless the statement of the question proposed is given, and even then they do not make law. The main questions are of fact." My facts thus far seem to have been pretty stubborn, as your contributor has not yet caught me tripping, and the public has already learned how unreliable historically are many of his assumed facts. They have faded away into unsubstantial fancies. It is my intention o resume to-day my work of demolition, and, at the same time, show how unreliable are his authorities. One day's labor, however, will not cover all the ground. " It 7luis not necessary to cite authors to prove that the cusiom of civilized nations is to respect private property, or any property not obnoxious to the fundamental law of the conquering state." It is refreshing to be able to put on record this one concession of my amiable friend, writing in ihe Gazette of the 7th. It is not much, but still it is something ; it gives at least a diagnosis of the case. He is of the Wedderburne temperament, and suffering from jesuitophobia. In principle, Wedderburne's was of a milder type. Under heading 6 and 7 {Gazette, June 28.) I cjuote his principle as quite correct : " No other right can be founded on conquest but that of regulating the political and civil government of the country, leaving to the indivi- duals the enjoyment of their property, and of all privileges not incon- sistent with the security of the conquest." It was, I said, in the appli- cation of this principle that he erred, for he evidently deemed the existence of the Jesuits, as proprietors, in Canada as " inconsistent with the security of the conquest." Otherwise, after having laid down the principle, just enunciated, he would be the most inconsistent of men. Your contributor, according to the same inexorable rule of dialectics, can now j- ''fy his pleading in favour o<" spoliation only by affirming that the holding of property by the Jesuits in Canada " was obnoxious to the fundamental law of the conquering state." And yet he admits that they, through the generosity of the English Govern- ment, held property here from the capitulation of Quebec until the death of Father Casot, a space of forty one years. We have yet to learn that during that long period the security of the conquest was jeopardized, or that the fundamental law of Great Britain was shaken. 61 We might pause, and ask ourselves what a fundamental law of a State is ? I take it to be one that is essential to the very existence of the State ; the basis of all, without which the State must crumble as the house with its foundations undermined or riven ; one which time and events cannot change without transforming the State into some other moral entity than itself And yet at the time Wedderburne was writing, the Jesuits held property in England, and do still. At the time .your contributor writes, the Jesuits are incorporated again in Canada. What has now become of the "fundamental law", or is merry England no longer herself but another ? Your contributor complacently quotes a portion of a passage from Wedderburne, whic' I should have quoted in extenso. to show the palpable absurdity of it, had I not thought your space too precious for such vagaries, long since dispelled from the minds of serious men. Let us complete the quotation : " The Jesuits, however, and the religious houses in France, which have estates in Canada u'. e. the RecoUeLs, Jesuits and Sulpicians) are upon a different footing from the others. " The establishment of the first is not only incompatible with the constitution of an English province (time has given the lie to this assertion), but with every other form of civil society." (Frederick 11 of Protestant Prussia and Catherine of Russia thought otherwise.) " By the rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every (iovern- meni." (They are the most steadfast supporters of every Government, and of the form of Government of every country in whicii they reside : monarchists in England and Can uJa. and republicaiis in tlic United States. Their rule is no other than the rule of St. Paul, looking upon every constituted authgriiy as of God, and obeying, in all things tem- jjoral, their rulers for conscience's sake.) " Other monastic orders may be tolerated, because, though they are not useful -subjects, still they are subjects, and make a part of the com- munity ill employed. (!) The Jesuits form no i)art of the community (Arrant nonsense). " They according to their institution neither allow allegiance nor ol)edience to the prince, but to a foreign power." This was not the way of thinking of those who closely watched the working of their institution. Take for instance Sir P.ii,hard Temple, a Protestant, and Vice-Roy of India. In 1877 he addressed the pupils of the Jesuits' College, St. Francis Xavier's of Calcutta, in the following terms : " Wnerever I go, whether to capital cities, amidst the turmoil and bustle and activity of civilized life, or to the remote interior of the country, perhaps amidst scenes of fimine, or sickness, or desolation, ii :■ 62 m : i. m *r III, there I find ministers of the Catholic reh'gion, who by their self-abnega- tion, by their long enduring patience, by their physical privations, and by their suffering, hold up the cross of Christ before the eyes of all men. " I hope that you, young men and students, will be grateful through- out all your lives to the reverend pastors and masters who are now teaching and tending you, who are distinguished by attainments in theology, divinity, literature and physical science. " We may not, indeed, claim them for our own nationality ; but still they are working in the midst of us the British people ; they are bring- ing you up to be loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of England and Empress of India. " Remember that your College bears the honoured, the venerated name of St. Francis Xavier (a Jesuit), who by devoted energy in the most sacred of causes, by fervent burning zeal even unto death, was one of the most remarkable characters that ever adorned the annals of Christendom. And in your future life and conversation, bear your- selves in a manner worthy of that great religious community to which it is your privilege to belong — a community which is found, not only in one nation, nor in one empire, nor even mi one hemisphere, but which exists for all nations under heaven, for all languages spoken by men, and for all climates in the habitable globe." (See Calcutta Englishman, quoted in the London Tablet. Feb. 17, 1877.) What Wedderburne meant by owing allegiance to a foreign power must be, I presume, to the Pope of Rome ; in which case every Catho- lic bishop, priest and layman might suffer attainder after the same fashion. Wedderburne continues : " They are not owners of their estates but trustees dependent upon the pleasure of a foreigner." j! i m ji In my correspondence with the Star I have clearly proven the utter groundlessness of this assertion. (See Star May 26, June 9' and 16 ; Pamphlet pages 9, 10, ,t8, 48-50.) I do not intend here to go over the same ground, as tru is within the reach of every honest inquirer. But as this objection has been brought up again by your contributor under another torm, that of the solidarity, or mutual responsibility of the various houses of the society, I shall add one short documen to those already given in my correspondence with the Star on that subject. Eight of the most celebrated lawyers of Paris were consulted on the affair of Lavalette and here is their decision : " Le Conseil estime, d'apres les faits et les moyens d^taill^s dans le m^moire, que la maison de la Martinique est seule obligee ; que non- 63 seulement il n'y a point lieu a la solidarity, qui ne peut naitre que d'une loi ou d'une convention expresse, mais qu'il n'y a aucune sorte d'action centre les maisons de France ou autres maisons de I'Ordre, et que les Jesuites ne doivent pas s'attacher a I'inconipetence, leur defense au fond ne souffrant point de difficulte. •' Delib^re a Paris, le 6 mars 1761. Signe : L'Herminier, Gillet, Maillard, Jaboure, de la Monnoie, iiabile, Thevenot, d'Epaule." But there were other secret, and more powerful influences at work. Had the Jesuits clung to their right oicovimittimus ihey were protected by the King ; but trusting to the justice of their cause, and not rightly- gauging the power and malignity of the Jansenist party in parliament, they confidingly Drought their case before the latter with the result so universally known and, later on at least, so universally deplored. But to return to Wedderburne : " Three great Catholic States have, upon grounds of policy, expelled them. It would be singular, if the first Protestant State in Europe shuuld protect an establishment that ere now must have ceased in Canada, had the French Government continued." The ministers who' for the time swayed the destiny of these States had nothing catholic but the name ; and having got rid of the Jesuits, their aim was to attack directly the Holy See. The atheists of the day took in the situation at a glance. D'Alembert wrote to his friend Voltaire : " Je ne sais ce que deviendra la religion de Jesus ; mais, en attendant, sa Compagnie est dans de mauvais draps." (CEuvres de Voltaire T. 48. Lettre 4 mai 1762.) Mr, Editor, your contributor could fill columns of your journal with quotations hostile to the Jesuits, and I could easily furnish as much in their favour. Between us we might fill volumes of cyclopic proportions^ and our controversy would not be a whit nearer the end. Setting aside therefore what has been written to their jiraise by Von Schlegel, Hal- lam, Bacon, Leibnitz, Grolius, Hessius, Gretser, Keller, Buffon, Haller, Muratori, Bancroft, Peramus, Chateaubriand, Carne, Pradie, Dallas and a hos,t of others, I sha'l ask you to insert the following quotation less known than others. I choose it, not because it is more to their praise, but because it evinces in the clearst terms the cause of their lack of popularity with a certain class. It is an extract from a letter addressed in the year 1825, by Mr. Kern, a Protestant professor in the University of Gottingen, to Doctor Tzschirner, in answer to certain strictures published by the latter against the Jesuits. It runs thus : " But who are at this day the enemies of the Jesuits ? They are of two classes, those who do not know them, and atheists and revolu- tionary philosophers. But every right minded man should admire that tH* % Mi 64 which is the object of the hatred of such characters ; for we may be assured that then, either religion, or justice, or subordination is at stake. The re-establishment of this celebrated order, so far from causing any disquietude, should, on the contrary, be regarded as a happy omen for our times. In its organization and its tendency is to be found the most powerful safeguard against the assaults of the doc- trines of impiety and insubordination : and this is constantly allowed even by Protestants themselves. John de Muller goes so far as to say that " it constitutes a common bulwark of defence for all lawful au- thority." The Jesuits attack evil in its very root by educating youth in the fear of God, and in obedience. It is true they will not teach Protestantism, but have we a right to require that Catholic.-, should teach other doctrines than those of their own Church ? Have we seen in times past doctrines issuing from the colleges of the Jesuits similar to those of our modern schools ? Have they preached up the sovereign- ty of the people and all its mournful consecjuences, as is done in the present dav in our Protestant universities ? Hostility to kingly au- thority has been impdted to them, but of this charge they have been wholly acquitted by Henry IV., King of France, and at a later period imder Louis XV, by an assembly of bishops convened by authority of that Monarch. "Experience proves to us what rapid progress revolutionary doctrines have made since the suppression of the Jesuits ; the P^nglish writer, Dallas, declares that everywhere on the continent the colleges of the Jesuits are replactd by Philosophical universities, in which faith and reason have ceased to be united in education. Reason, with all its errors, is preferred as being that which is most noble in man. Faith has been abandoned, and impiously derided as superstitious. " In 1773, Clement XIV suppressed the order of St. Ignatius, In 1793 a King of France was beheaded, and temples were opened to deified Reason. During two centuries the e/ife of the French noblesse were educated by the Jesuits, in their college of Clermont at Paris, in a love of religion, of science and of country. In a brief space, after the dismissal of these skilful masters, the same college cast upon society a Robesi)ierre, a Camille Desmoulins, a Tallien, a Noel, a Freron, a Chenier, with a host of others similarly corrupt. Can it then, after all this, be a matter of astonishment that the Pope and Catholic princes should recall men whose services are so much required, and whose high work has been acknowledged by the great Leibnitz, by Frederick II, and of whom Bacon has said : "To discover the best mode of education, the surest way is to consult the schools of the Jesuits." But it was precisely their influence as educators of youth that Wed- derburne affected to distrust, so by a new principle in law, unheard of hitherto in any civilized community, they are to be punished before hand for possible misdeeds in the future. And bear in mind, Mr Editor, that he testifies to their good behaviour in the present. Listen to what he has to say to palliate an act of " spoliation" : " Uncertain of their tenure in Canada, the Jesuits have hitherto 65 remained very quiet (this was thirteen years after Quebec capitulated and eight months before the brief of suppression was drawn up), but should the establishment be tolerated there, they would soon take the ascendant of all the other priests ; the education of the Canadians would be entirely in their hands, aftd averse as they may bt at present to France, it exceeds any measure of credulity to suppose that they would ever become truly and systematically friends to Britain. " It is therefore equally just and expedient in this instance, to assert the sovereignty of the King, and to declare that the landsof the Jesuits are vested in his Majesty, allowing, at the same time, to the Jesuits now residing in Canada, liberal pensions out of the incomes of their estates." This is precisely that necessity against which Thurlow, whose report bears a later date, warns his Majesty when he says : '* Not that ideal necessity which ingenious speculation may always create by possible supposition, remote inference and forced argument." More honest than Wedderburne, he requires, as every unbiassed judge should, " some actual and urgent necessity, which real wisdom could not over- look or neglect." Therefore the case of the Jesuits' estates was not one of these " exceptions and qualifications" spoken of by Thurlow and insisted on by your contributor. It was however this act which led Christie (I. page 39), to remark that ** The Government dealt liberally with them. They were allowed to die out before it took possession of the estates or interfered with them, which was not till after the death of Father Casot, the last of the crder, in 1800." It was this " unparallelled act of generosity" which excites the admiration of your contributor. We have made away with his heirs, let us now be generous. Let the old man die in peace and plenty, but we are sure of the inheritance ! Your contributor might no doubt ask how is it possible that a man of Wedderburne's standing could be so hopelessly prejudiced against the order ? He read one side of the question. He took up his pam- phlet or paper of the day and read the current slander against the Jesuits, just as any one might have picked up the Gazette of July 6th, and read, on the first page in bold type : *' Jesuits suspended from religious ministrations by bishop Lafl^che of Three Rivers" ; in which paragraph inuendo is not wanting : " Thirty families, it is stated, refused to attend mass because of their experiences with the fathers." It is not contradicted on the morrow, nor the next day. All the papers of the Dominion and the leading ones of New- York copy the thrilling item. And so the reputation of men and societies is blasted. A tardy, and perhaps reluctant contradiction comes at last ; but for every twenty 66 •,,, il: who have read this libel one may possibly read the correction. The^ harm is done. As for Marriot, the friend of Voltaire, added to his intense religious hatred of the society he was a cynic. To ascertain what manner of man he was, open the Debates of 1774 and read his examination before the House in committee (pages 163 and 172). The man did not take the serious things of life seriously. What did he care for the well being of his Majesty's new subjects, the Canadians ? After his famous letter 12 May, 1765) to Norton and de Grey, attorney and solicitor general, written, if you please, in his capacity of King's advocate, and to which he annexed certain " proofs and extracts" concerning the Constitution of the Jesuits, and French law, one might be led to imagine that he knew something of French civil law, of the Constitution of the Jesuits and Canon law. On these latter, of all hazy notions his are the haziest.. On the former the extent of his knowledge is given by himself. Asked by a member (Debates, p. 163) Do you understand the French law ? He answers : I find it very difficult to understand any law. — Do you know the power of the French King under the constitution of the French law ? — I do not well understand the constitution of France.. I never was in France. It is very hard foi a foreigner to obtain an adequate idea of the constitution of another country. By another member : Do you understand the French law ? — Not the style of it, nor its forms very well. — What do you mean by the style of it ? — There is in every country, in which a system of civil laws is established, a law-la^ guage, as there are, in every art and science, words and phrases peculiar to them. Now, Mr. Editor, if there be a law which possesses a style very peculiar to itself, and unintelligible to one not versed in it, it is Canon law, and especially that particular portion which relates to reHgious orders and their constitutions. Yet a foreigner, a layman and a Huguenot, Marriot does not hesitate to sit in judgment on the consti- tution of the Jesuits. What wonder then that he makes such egregious blunders. In his " proofs and extracts" he confounds the Sodality of the B. V, M. with the Society of Jesus itself, and reckons up its mem- bers, and this seriously, as Jesuit laymen, married and single, as women and children, all belonging to the order. (See Report, 1824, French^ Edit. p. 211). From the fact that neither the professed houses, nor the professed themselves, can enjoy any revenues,and that the General has a supervision to exercise as to their finances, he concludes " all the property of these houses of the missions clearly belongs to the Father General (p. 212) ! He quotes the Bulls of the Popes, confirm- ing the constitutions of the Jesuits, as a man who does not understand . '' 67 Latin. He argues from the fact of the General having jurisdiction over the whole order, that therefore everything belongs -to him personally I He emphasizes in one case, that of the houses and missions, the strict poverty enjoined by the rule, and in the other is forgetful of the fact that the General also is bound by a solemn vow of poverty, and is in- capacitated from personally holding any property. He arrogantly as- sumes to himself the office of teaching canon law to the nineteen popes who had up to that time solemnly approved all the absurdities, which existed in his fertile imaginat on only. Page after page of talk even more silly leads him finally to his goal, and he pompously concludes : " And it is not astonishing that an institution, which appears to have been devised with a subtlety more than human, to owerthrow the laws of every country ecclesiastical or civil, should encounter in the laws of every country an obstacle to its establishment." And we might add that it is not astonishing, that Sir Fletcher Nor- ton and William de Grey, in the teeth of Marriot's all but isolated opi- nion, that the conqueror may do v^^ry much as he pleases with tiic in- dividual rights of the conquered, returned a ne,s;ativi' answer (June lo, 1765) to the question put them by the Lords of plantation affairs. This question was formulated as follows : * " Are not the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty, residing in the countries of America ceded to His Majesty, subject in those colo- nies to the same civil disabilities and penalties, to which Roman Ca- tholics in the realm are subject by law?" For Marriot was not the man to give an impartial and reliable decision. As for Mr. Dunkin's statement I take it to be worth its face value. Be it so that Vaudreufl strove to insert some other clause in the capi- tulation, I have no data to authorize me to gainsay his assertion. But my reasoning is based, not on what might or might not have been ad- ded f,o the capitulation, not on what Amherst might have intended at the time, or is made to intend, even as an afterthought, as ten years elapsed between the capitulation and his petition, but it is based wholly on the capitulation as it stands, and as we are bound to surmise what his intention was from the context and according to the received canons for the interpretation of treaties. " T/ie title ivliich was given by the King to the old Province of Lower Canada was not only by conquest but by escheat." I should like very much to be informed from what document this in- formation is gleaned. Lord Goderich in announcing the cession of the Jesuits estates to the old province, on July yih., 1831, makes no 'I J •J 68 1 , It ; HI mention of the title. Neither does Ba'on Aylmer in his speech before Assembly, on Feb, '25 1832, wherein he refers to Lord Goderich's despatch. I should be grateful also if informed what the remainder of the citation of the writ of seizure adds to what I already gave. It merely confirms what I said previously, that the title was one of con- quest, the administration looking upon it as a favour " to suffer the late surviving members to occupy certain parts of the said estates etc." The sole crumb of comfort seems to be derived from the as- sumption that Casot's status was not identical with that of " the lae surviving members of the said late order." This conflicts in no point with my proposition. At most it would go to show that his Majesty's advisers in Canada were, like your contributor, misinformed either with regard to what constitutes a Jesuit, or to the fact of Casot's being duly qualified as such. Now I wish to set at rest once for all this question of escheat, though as I have already made manifest the King had no better right through escheat than he had by conquest. Is it historically true that on May 24, 1770, Jeffrey Lord Amherst's petition, previously made, was referred by the King in Council to the Lords of the Committee ; — that by them it was r ferred to the board of trade, who reported back on June 7 ; — and that thereupon the Lords of the Committee of Council for plantation affairs recommended as advisable the granting of Lord Amherts's petition ;— that on Nov. 9, of the same year, the King's order in Council was issued to grant n>/iaf might be legally granted ; — that the Attorney and Solicitor Gen- eral, by their report of Dec. 14, 1770, put a stop for a time, for certain reasons assigned, to further proceedings in the matter ; — that, on the demise of his uncle, William Pitt Lord Amherst recommenced the al- ready oft-repeated formality ; — that this game of shuttlecock was kept up, at intervals, from 1770 down to July the 18, 1799? The thing is vouched for by endless documents and reports. Now, I ask your contributor, is he ready to reiterate his assertion {Gazette, July 7) that " the crown-lawyers in England (I say nothing of Wil- liams and Gray, in the colony, as their want of legal knowledge or no- torious lack of principle is clearly established by Messrs. Panet and Taschereau) — the Crown-lawyers to whom the matter was referred, reported the Crown's right indubitable but delayed proceedings through mere difficulties of describing technically the property" ? If he answer in the affirmative, I say then it was a foregone conclu- sion to effect a spoliation based solely on the rights of conquest. For all along, until the latter dates, there were a number of Jesuits surviv- ing. So there was no question of escheat — and had these minor diffi- ' 69* culties been cleared up, according to this theory, the estates would have passed into the hands of Amherst or his heirs during the lifetime of these Jesuits. If he reconsider his assertion, and say that the law-officers of the Crown could not satisfy themselves that the King had any legal title to these estates, it is what I have been saying all along, in vindication of the sense of honour of these same legal advisers to his Majpsty. The question I affirmed was not a simple one, though your contributor has not yet opened his eyes to the fact, I: was no doubt owing to this legal difficulty, and in a great measure to the fearless and able de- nunciation of Chandler's duplicity, and the incompetency or dishonesty, just as you prefer, of Williams and Cray on the part of Messrs, Panel and Taschereau{*) not less than to deCilapion's firm but respectful pro- test, (f) that the estates were left ostensibly to the province. On July nth 1803 the King sent a message to the Commons setting forth that his gracious intentions, in favour of William Pitt Lord Amherst, the nephew of Jefi"rey, could not be carried out " owing to difficulties aris- ing from local circumstances." Thereupon the Act. 43 Ceo. Ill c. i5(> was passed granting an annuity to Amherst's heirs. The other statement of your contributor is for similar reasons mis- leading, when he says : " difficulties of describing technically the pro- perty intervened, and during the delays of enquiry Amherst died, and the orders to prepare the deeds were cancelled," the latter part being also historically inaccurate. " In following the histories jcie/e/I into an error — 'unimportant Jiow- ever, as Cazot (tied the same year (\S'6>o). He was not a Jesuit. He was procurditor, but the last Jesuit was Father de Giation." This was one of Roubaud's cock and-bull stories (See report on Can, Archives, 1885, p. cxli). To what extent that gentleman's ve- racity may be relied on, those who are ever so little conversant with the history of the time can tell. The writer assures us that he "fell into an error — unimportant however." He alludes no doubt to his former assertion in the 6\zsi7'/'iy tcrong in appro- priating the estates, and Uk. Mer lEH is of course justified in making restitution at this time of the day out of the public chest. Rkplv ;— The p^eneral statement of the case against the government is set forth, as I have said, on page 8 of this pamphlet. For full ■t }i 1 vili.i 78 developments see 'pages there indicated in the references. For the proofs of the positive claim of the Jesuits on these estates see page 50. r m r i 1 ■■];■ i '^' i|! m ij i _^.-. .'- fc a i mi ^ i ■1 (2). T/iis argument is not, we think, a valid one. The Jesuits icere suppressed throughout the loorld by a Papal' bull in 1773, and the order everywhere ceased to exist. Reply : — When Ihc writer appeals to a Papal Brief (it was not a bull) to make good an assertion, he appeals to an instrument imknown outside of Catholic ecclesiastical law, and amusingly arro- gates to himself competency of judging in such matters. A "heathen Chinee " in the Court of Arches would cut but a sorry figure ; but the Editor of the Mail no doubt would take kindly to a position as minutaiite in a Roman congregation. And if he were not there thoroughly at home, we shall at least not be so discourteous as to suppose for an instant that he is not familiar with some of the more widely known canonico-legal principles, for instance : that a discipli- nary measure, coming even from the Supreme Head of the Church, requires promulgation to become law. The promulgation of the brief of suppression, rigidly enforced in almost every country in the world and followed by the instant secularization of the members of the Society, was, owing to the opposition of Frederick II, witheld for a time in parts of Germany and absolutely never accomplished either in Russia or in Canada. The very tenor of the brief however requi- red it. With regard to Canada, it is point of history : " When the Sovereign Pontiff goaded on by earthly rulers abolished the Jesuits, Carleton sought out Monseigneur Briand and enjoined on him to say nothing of the Papal bull (brief |, adding that he took upon himself the maintaining of these religious in Canada The bishop wrote to the Sovereign Pontiff tinl the Jesuits of the Province, full of summission to his will, had shown their readiness to disperse and to set aside the habit of their order, but that it had been determined otherwise until further notice, thanks to an agreement between himself and the secular power. " [Institutions de PHistoire du Canada, par Bibaud, Jeunc, Senical et Dani'I, Montreal, 1855, page 340). That further notice never came. . To effectuate the suppression it was enjoined on all the bishops of the Catholic world, among other things, to take possession of the pro- perty of the Jesuits : " Singularum domorum, collegiorum, nee non et locorum hujusmodi et illorum bonorum, jurium et pertinent iarum qua- rumcunu/ne possessionem nomine S. Sedis apprehendat et retineat." But neither was this, nor were any ether of the enactments of the 79 Brief put in force. The superiors remained at their posts, and con- tinued to exercise control over their subordinates, all of whom retained their habit, name and customs of community life. They were styled Jesuits and acted as such. They administered their estates as any other religious body of men are wont to do. In an official utterance of the 1 8th Nov. 1789, Mgr Hubert speaks of the Estates as " apparte- nant actuellement aux Jesuites " and furtlier implies that the bishops- of Quebec, up to that date, exercised no coutrol over the same. Chandler and the other royal commissioners, in an official commu- nication of the 23rd January 1788, addressed the body thus: ^^ Aux Reverends Peres de Glapion, Super ienr, et autres Jesuites en la Pro- vince de Qut'bec. De Glapion in his eloquent and dignified protest against a threatened spoliation, addressed to Hugh Finlay, President of the Legislative Council, signs himself : " Supericur des Jesuites en Canada." Even a poor surviving lay brother, and I had thought until quite lately that they had all long before that date been secularized, signs an important document, dated 13th Jan, 1780, under the eyes of the Vicar General, M. Hubert, who signed it with him. — He signs with- outprotest Frere Demers,Jesiiite. (See Archives, Hotel-Dieu de Quebec.) These and many other well authenticated facts and documents i)rove conclusively for any canonist that canonically the Jesuits were not suppressed in Canada. II would be difficult to prove in a court of law that they were ever even civilly suppressed in the Province, and certainly not down to 1791 {see pp. 29, 30). What evidence is there, or can the Editor of the Mail adduce, to prove that the Royal Instructions of 1791 were ever pro- mulgated by a decree, or in any legal form? If there be none, the pre- viously recognized' corporation of the Jesuits was never even civilly- suppressed. (3). It is extremly doubtful if the Jesuits had a legal title to their estates tmder the French law which prevailed here do7vn to the conquest. Reply: — What is extrcncly doubtful is that the Editor of the Mail ever took the trouble to enquire into the matter. The Jesuits had a perfect legal title to their estates, as even any third class lawyer in a police court can understand by consulting pp. 26, 27 and 28. (4). All the title existing appears to have been vested in the Gmeral of the order., who, being an alien not under allegiance to the King of France, could not hold real property either in I^rance or in a French colony. ' 80 Reply : — I most formally and emphatically deny the truth of the assertion that the title to the property of the Jesuits is vested in the General of the Jesuits at Rome. Like the president or avowed head, of any civil corporation, whose field of action may extend to more than one country (let us take the (). T, R. for instance, whose lines extend into the neighboring States), the General of the Jesuits exercises a certain control over the movable and immovable ]>roperty of the order. He is not the owner. He cannot take from one house to give to another. His office is to administer, through himself or others, the estates belonging to these separate houses, and may pass contracts only to the advantage and for the utility of these houses. (Constitut. P. IX., C. IV. ; Examen gen., C. I., No. 4; Bulla, Greg XIII, 1582). If the annual income of the colleges, destined, in virtue of the intention of founders or of the provisions of the institute, for the sustenance and clothing of the Jesuits who are their inmates, exceed the outlay, the surplus in each house is to be employed, not in new establishments, but in liquidating outstanding debts or increasing the revenues (Inst, pro admin., tit. pro rect, No. 6). Both Church and State had recog- nized this right of non-solidarity. For when one house was in penury, its revenues being insufficient, both powers, without taking into con- sideration the comparative i)rosperity of other houses, assisted the poorer house with their endowments. They recognised thus their non- solidarity. In France down to 1760 no one thought of questioning this non- solidarity which all religious orders enjoyed in common with the Jesuits. Subsequently it was never assailed in other institutes, it was attacked only in that of Loyola. It was alleged that the general of the society held despotic sway, that he was absolute master of per- sons and things, and consequently universal proprietor of all the worldly goods of the order. According to the terms of their consti- tution, this assertion was groundless, but under the influence of certain bitter hatreds it assumed the proportions of a principle. The legislation of the Institute is nevertheless clear on this point. The General is ranked in the same category as his brethren , if they cannot hold property, in their own right, for having vowed perpetual poverty, neither can he, for the same identical reason. In religious societies it is not the individuals nor the superior who possesses, but the various establishments, as bodies corporate, legally recognized as such before both civil and ecclesiastical law. The text of Loyola's constitutions exhibits every where the General as the administrator and not the proprietor of the Society's possessions. In his adminis- tration, which the constitutions (P. IV. c. 11) term superintendence, 81 as it is he who names the other superiors, who must give him an account of their administration, the General is subject, on all essential points, to the control of general congregations. Without their assent, he can neither alienate nor suppress a college or other establishment, and the breach of this law would be for him a case of deposition, or even expulsion from the society, provided for in the constitutions (P. IX. c. 4.) He is empowered to accept property or donations for the society j he may, when the intention of the donor is not determined, allot them to this or that house ; but once they are allotted, it is beyond his povvers to divert what accrues, or to collect a percentage on the revenues either for his own use or for strangers. But had it even been the case, as far as France was concerned, at the time of the conquest and after, it certainly was not the General who held possession of the Jesuits' estates in Canada. The merest tyro in jurisprudence is able to apprehend the meaning of the letters patent and of the Royal Instructions. Louis XIV styles the Jesuits: *' Nos chers et bien aimez les religieux de la compagnie de Jesus resi- dant en noire pays de la Noiivellc France ", and the Royal Instructions of the i6th September, 1791 ; "the present members of the said society (/. e., society of Jesuits already mentioned) as established at Quebec." There is no question here of a sole but of an aggregate corporation : no question of the General of the Society, but of the body established at Quebec. To all intents and purposes, for a Canadian court, the General was a legal nonentity. It was this all important point that Marriot in his bitter hatred feigned to overlook, and that others taking him at his word, have so thoughtlessly ignored. Hence all the title to property existing was not vested in the General at Rome. I shall not enquire at what particular date the disability of foreigners to hold property in France ceased. The thing is also entirely foreign to the subjet, and its inability of proving anything against the Jesuits' claims equally manifest. Who ever said that foreigners, at that period, could hold property in France or England ? Certainly no Jesuit ever maintained it. I shall not begrudge the Editor of the J[/i;/ all the comfort he can derive from this harmless asse'^^ion. To make clear the non-solidarity between the different houses of the order in financial matters, I have already recorded on pages 62 and 63 the opinion of eight of the most eminent Parisian la»vyers given the 6th March 1761. What follows will clear up all difficulties in this matter. Protestant countries ignore religious orders, and treat them as civil corporations, or merely recognize their individual members as enjoying before the law equal rights with other citizens. In Catholic countries, it h if ' ii* 1^; i'?i 1 82 civil legislation was supposed to be enacted so as to harmonize witb canon law, of which the Church was the true expounder. When, therefore, the decisions of doctors of Sorbonne, or of the advocates of the various parliamentary bodies of France are at variance with canon law, as expounded by the church, such decisions must needs be held as not valid, not only by every Catholic, but hypothetically by every Protestant. That is, if the latter take at all into account canon law, so as to determine the status of a religious order, they must frame their notions in accordance with the declared intention of the Catholic legislator, and the sole authority in the Catholic Church who can canonicaily establish or suppress religious orders. The Supreme Pontiff approves their rules, declares their vows solemn or simple, modifies if needs be, according to the exigency of the times, their mode of life, and determines their relations with civil society, in contact with which they necessarily come. A professed religious, incapable of possessing pro])erty before the church, he may empower to hold real or personal estate before civil law, as, in fact, he does in all Protestant and in most Catholic countries, modernized in the sense of the French Revolution. The common assertion that a mendicant order can hold no prop- erty in its own right is at variance with canon law. A mendicant order holds property and has always done so. Or to be more accurate, each separate cominunity owns in its own right the monastery it occupies. The individual religious holds and can hold no property save by a canon ico- legal fiction before the civil law of a country which refuses to take cognizance of him otherwise than as a citizen. Since the Revolution, jurisprudence on these matters has ce^ised to exist in France. Prescinding from the constitutions of the divers religious societies, constitutions which suppose or establish the non- solidarity between houses of the same order, this state of things is^ supported on other incontestable grounds. It was recognized by letters ;nt, which in sanctioning each religious establishment, college, nastery, or community, imparted to each its peculiar and distinctive il existence. These letters patent assured to each the separate and unassailable right of property over its patrimony and domains. In virtue of similar royal enactments each religious house enjoyed the right of making contracts through its administrator ; that of sueing and being sued, of pleading and being impleaded ; the right of acquiring and accepting donations, pious beqi:ests indefinitely, or with limita»^ion, as the case might be, was equally conceded. Thus there existed as many bodies corporate as there were houses duly authorized,, and the goods and cha^^^tels of the one were never confounded with those of th 3 other. " , . . - ' ; 83 This was the case of the Jesuits in Canada, under Frencli rule. A glance at the Letters Patent of Louis XIV and Louis XV still pre- served in the provincial archives will convince the incredulous. The Jesuits of Canada, were a body cori)orate before the conquest (which none vvill dispute), at the conquest and after the conquest, down as far even as 1791, (See pages 26 to 30). And if they then ceased so to be, it was by an unwarrantable measure on the part of the Crown. Their civil status was known and recognized by the Supreme Pontiff, known and recognized by the Imperial Goverrment. (5) lI'^iiiTiH^ this point, the British authcitics found the estates without an oioner in 1800, after the death of the la>^t survivor of the order in Canada ; and, under Brisish /ani, the estates thereupon escheated to the Crown. There was no spoliation or anything remotely resembling it. The property passed to the Crown, like the Mereer estate in this provinee afeio years ago, owing to the absence of laivful heirs ; and that wa& the end of the matter. It may be worth lohile, however, to call attention to one or t7vo facts which have an indirect bearing on this branch of the subject. British law has long treated the Society of Jesus as an illegal organization. Blackstone, /// his well known Com- mentaries, 7i' hie h were issued in 1765-9, held it to be such (sec under the head of " Mortmain." ) Again, the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 imposed severe restrictions on the Jesuits and members of other religions orders. This provision is still in force in the United Kingdom ; at least Mr. Gf-adstonk implitd as much durin^j his controversy on Vaticanism ; while in 1875 Mr. Disraeli stated in a speeth that " although no proceedings had been taken against Jesuits under the Act " fj/" 1829, he begged it to be under stood that the provisions of that " Act " are not obsolete, but, on the contrary, are reserving powers of law of " which the British Government ivill be prepared to avail themselves if ^'•necessary." The Act of \Z2C) provides that any Jesuit or oth >* 7] '>> '/ /A Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 873-4303 •■^ V \\ ^les ? m. ?ii 1^4 ii I m- >*■■'■■ m. : ■ i-i WA,' ■]■'■ m I Reply : — In attempting " to try the whole matter by the test of analogy" the writer in the Mail is singularly infelicitous in the choice of his terms of comparison. Unless his intention be not' to prove anything in particular, but merely to hound on the Masons and the Orangemen in this attack against the Province of Quebec in the free exercise of its clearly defined rights. I say Quebec advisedly, as its legislature was unanimous in passing the Bill. But as we have not to busy ourselves about the intentions of men, which we leave to the Searcher of hearts, let us see if there be, what he should have proved, any parity or analogy in the hypothesis. The Jesuits were and are a body corporate (pp. 26-30). In the province of Quebec the Orange association is certainly not incorporated. (We say nothing of Ontario, as the Mail speaks of the Province of Quebec). So that, in default of rightful heirs, their property would lapse to the Crown as that of private individuals only. Of the vast body of Masons in Quebec there is but one branch incorporated, generally termed that of Blue Masonry. I hazard this appellation, and the Afail y/\\\ be lenient, I hope, as I am not thoroughly versed in the lore of the brethren ot the mystic tie. However I invite the Editor to con- sult the records and he will find that I am substantially correct. The Orangemen tiierefore are out of the question. What now about those Masons who are incorporated in the Province ? To be enabled to give a satisfactory solution, several questions should yet be answered. Are they regarded by the law as coming under the heading of religious or eleemosynary corporations ? Was their property acquired by donation, the donors having in view and specifying praiseworthy and legitimate ends ? Did the Crown debar them from receiving new members infraudem legis ? Was the Govern- ment, in assuming the proprietorship, in good faith at the inception, or was it, owing to some protest previous to the seizin, placed in the position of a malce fidei possessor from the beginning. Were these protests kept up at reasonable intervals during the eighty-seven years? etc., etc. When these and many other queries have been answered satisfactorily^ the next question would be, whether that " wholly^diflferent set of men V* •^ 89 calling themselves Freemasons" are revived by a new charter with the express intention of preserving the old corporation (pp. 50, 51,) with which, we will suppose, as in the case of the Jesuits, they were bound by some unbroken tangible tie, either within or without the limits of the Province, and which taken alone, without giving them an absolute civil legal right to the estates in question, may serve at least as a means of identification. I should not then ask, as the Editor, " can any body suppose that the Quebec Legislature could be induced to grant compensation ?" For Legislatures, as I think the Editor has lived long enough to know, do not always do the legal thing, but I ask 7c'/iat looiihi the Legislature be expected to do in strict legality ? Since the article of the Afaii was written many months have elapsed, and during the interval the Ottawa Government has declared its inten- tion of not Jisallowing the Bill. This was an act of mere justice. And for that act, though it be looked upon as demanded by justice, the Society of Jesus feeis grateful, and will not allow its gratitude to be lessened by any consideration of what might have been the policy of the Federal Government in so doing. This would be going beyond its sphere and would be an entering on the arena of politics, which the Society eschews. The present is a fitting occasion to 'revert to the efforts of some of the friends of the opposition in the. Province of Quebec. They have industriously endeavoured to spread an ill-defined rumour that the Society had taken sides in the politics of the Province. This insinuation, for it never assumed the proportions of a specific accusation, is wholly groundless. The Superior of the order in Canada, in the columns of the Montreal press, issued a formal declaration to the contrary dated the 4th of February of the present year. It was perhaps unnecessary, bu* the object was to dispel the uneasiness arising from the supposition that the order was allowing itself to be dragged into the whirl of party strife. Now, if the Society were called upon to define its attitude with regard to public afiairs wholly secular, it could not better determine its stand than by saying that it reciprocates the feelings attributed to Its friends in the above mentioned declaration : "The society of Jesus, as a fixed principle, should hold itself aloof from politics, and what proves that we have been faithful to this rule is that we have always numbered sincere and devoted friends among eminent men belonging to every shade of party politics not inimical to the Church." I mean to say that the Society identifies itself with no purely political party, but that such men, specified in the declaration, will always find i J 90 111 ■a^ ■ > Kil in the Society, according to the measure of its feeble resources, unfeigned sympathy and support. But this sympathy bowewer impartially it be yielded, cannot rea- sonably stand in the way of an expression of well earned gratitude, one of the noblest impulses of the human heart. And when friends have risked as public men their popularity with the unthinking and unreason- ing masses of a sister ])rovince, in not hesitating to do and dare in what they rightly deemed an act of justice, and which in a small measure at least may redound to the advantage of the Society, is it necessary to state that these men have laid the Society under lasting obligations? But we are fully awire that, we owe gratitude also to those who, during their administration silently but effectually prepared the way, and contributed in no slight degree to the working out of the present solution. It were a breach of confidence, we thought, to thank them by name. Ikit since our silence has been misinterpreted it is but fair that the public should know that we are not unmindful of their good services. Circumstances, over which the Society had certainly no control, prevented the further realization of their plans. They may not rightly have gauged the importance of the support upon which they could count coming from every class of persons in the Province of Quebec, but wc know that their intentions were honest and their friendship sincere. It is consequently to the entire Province, irrespective of party, that we are ii>debted; and though we may share eventually but in a very inferior degree in the benefits of the restitution, made however in view cf a wrong done the Society, our keen appreciation of its goodwill will be the same as if the entire sum were to be allotted to us. We come now to an important admission which the Editor of the liai/ would do well to bear in mind in the midst of the senseless clamor he has contributed to excite : // is reported from Ottawa that an effort is being made to secure the disallowance of the compensation bill, which has just passed its third reading. Beyond question, however, the Quebec Legislature is well within its rights in passing the fesuit Incorporation Act of last year. Disallo7vance could only be invoked, therefore, on the ground that the establishment and endowment of the Jesuit order in Canada was con- trary to the public interest ; and this course a Gov ernor-in-Council free from clerical entanglements would probably not hesitate to pursue. But it is useless to look for resolute action from either political party where (lerical interests are involved. Reply : I have nothing to say about the Governor-in-Council, I shall leave that to the Mail ; I fully concur in opining that the Que- ^^ in m: 91 bee Legislature is well within its rights. Let me add however, that with regard to the ground for disallowance, there will be little danger on that score if the Mail and its congeners keep within the legimate region of facts, and refrain from trotting out some bugaboo from the columns of a favorite encyclopaedia. Their stock-in-trade is no novelty, but the main staple is no doubt the loose principles of the Jesuits. And in dealing with this class of Pharisees an anonymous writer on the same subject in 1828 very appo- sitely says : "It is anything but natural to apply the principles of severity exclusively to one's self while encouraging laxity in others. Quite the reverse is the every day occupation of many who feign to take offence at the principles of the assumed lax Ethics of the Jesuits. To this the world bears witness, and worldly as the world is, it is scandalized and scoffs, while good men are heart-sore. But after all to consider things in the light of common sense, it will be always acknowleged less surprising to find rigorism preached by those who live loosely, than to see laxity preached by those who practice rigorism. The former is all down-hill work, and is prevalent enough in our day. The latter mode offers no inducement. Nothing is to be gained by it either in (iod's sight or the world's. It would be to work out one's own damnation at great labor and cost, with not one compensating feature ; it would be to go to perdition by the narrow gate. Such a plan was never hmned according to the promptings of self-indulgence, and to have invented it, the Jesuits must have been made of different clay from that of other mortals." We- e the true principles of Jesuit Ethi on mental reservation or prevarication adopted by their adversari many a church, which a month or so ago (for it was the general complaint) were all but empty, would have remained so, and many a column of the fanatical press, now teeming with sensational and blood-thirsty harangues, would have remained blank and unsullied, though the net profits would have been considerables less. The best that can be hoped for is that Sir John Macdonaid sha// set his /ace against the plea now being covertly put forivard, that inas- much as the Jesuits preached the Gospel here for two hundred years prior to the conquest, and that the revenue from these estates, was applied betvceen 1841 and 1867 to the purpose of education in Upper as well as in Lower Canada, to Protestant as well as to Roman Ca- tholic schools and colleges, therefore the payment of the $400,000 granted /y Mr. Mercier rt5 compensation should be assumed by the Federal treasury. And thus the Mail closes its article. The contents of this last para- \^ M 92 graph do not concern us. The Mai/ kept up for a while its desultory fire, but no new arguments were brought to bear on the Jesuit position. Little by little the champion of anti-Catholic causes was lulled to sleep. Months after, it again awoke to a sense of danger. It espoused the cause of the Evangelical Alliance. The worthy members of this orga- nization had, in the meantime, been painfully made aware that their meeting-houses were about empty, and thai something thrilling must be put on the boards to draw a house. The old Jesuit hobby was brought down from the garret, the dust and cobwebs reverentially removed, and with a fresh coat of paint it was found that it might yet do good service. When it has served its term, and its usefulness is gone, it will be again stowed away, to be held in reserve for some future occasion. Renascent ur memfcia. r For an answer to the popular objections, now being urged for the hundredth time against the Ethical Code of the Jesuits, we refer the consciencious searcher after truth to Brow.nson's Essays, NetuYork, Sadlier, 1858 : " Tliornweirs Answer to Dr. Lynch:" Can what is philosop}ncally true be theologicai/y false 1 p. 180. And for what con- cerns more particularly the Jesuits : The end justifies the means, Pro- hahilistn, Tlie Jesuit Oath, etc., pp. 186 to icfS passim. Does the End justify thk means? American Catholic Quar- terly Review, Jan 1888, p. 119; Catholic KE\iEy<, Neiu- York, Jan. 21 ; Feb. 4; March 10, 1888. « ( 1^1 li APPENDIX A. % I Tlie JeNiiitN* Declaration of Higlits previous to the Helziire. On May 24th 1770, Lord Jeffery Amherst's petition for the Jesuits' Estates was referred by the King to the Lord of the Committee of Council. In spite of innumerable reports and other endless proceed ings, nothing definite had been concluded in the matter fpr sixteen years. On August i8th 1786, the King's order was issued directing Lord Dorchester to form a commission within the province, as it n-as hoped that being on the spot such commissioners would be better able to bring the work to completion than the Crown Lawyers residing in England. To fully comprehend the workings of this commission and the duplicity of Chandler, its chairman, it would be well to consult the protest of Messrs. Panet and Tas( 'ereau, embodied in the Report of Education in 1824, page 152 (French version), under the heading *• Des procedes des neuf commissaires." On August 26 1788, both the Commissioners and the Jesuits were summoned by Hugh Finlay, the president of the Legislative Council, to appear before that body on September 15th following. The subjoined letter is the answer of tlie Jesuit Superior. Endorsed : Answer or Letter of F. de Glapion, Jesuit, to Mons. Hugh Finlav, member ok the Legislative Council, 10 Sei'i'. 1788. Monsieur le President, I offer you an apology for having so long delayed answering the letter you were pleased to address me on the 26th of last August. If you deem indispensible our presenting ourselves before your honorable Committee, we shall appear before it on the .• 5th of the present month, at the hour indicated. But we can say nothing more than what I have now the honor of submitting to you : I. Since we passed under English rule, we have been and are still, and always will remain docile and faithful subjects of His Britannic 94 Majesty. We dare flatter ourselves that the English Governors, who have ruled this province, would not refuse us attestations of our fidelity and obedience. II. It would appear that at the present juncture there is less ques- tion of our persons than of our temporalities. Our Estates or landed possessions have come to us from three dif- ferent sources: i" The Kings of France gave us a portion of them* 2° Private individuals another portion. These donations were made with the intent of affording sustenance to the Jesuit Missionaries employed in the instruction of the Indians and Canadians. Most of them ceased to devote themselves to these works of charity then only when they ceased to live; and those who have survived them are engaged in the same labors, and persevere in the determination of so doing until their death, which in the course of nature cannot be far removed. 3'^ Finally our predecessors acquired with their own funds the third portion of our Estates. III. All our title-deeds of possession, which are well and duly regis- tered at the provincial record-office show that all these Estates or landed possessions have always belonged to us in fee-simple ; and we have always managed and administered them as our own without let or hinderance. IV. Our proprietorship was clearly recognized in the Capitulation of Canada signed at the camp before Montreal, the 8th of September 1760J since, in virtue of the 35th article, Lord Amherst allowed us to sell our landed estates and movables in whole or in part, and to transmit the proceeds to France. V. Be this as it may. Sir, we are in the hands of his Majesty who will decide according to his good pleasure. But irreproachable subjects and children can await a favorable decision only from so gracious a King and so kind a father as is his His Majesty George III. I have the honor to be with profound respect. Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant, AUGUSTIN L. DE GlAPION, Superior of the Jesuits in Canada. Quebec, the I cth of September 1788. (The autograph letter is preserved in the Archives of St. Mary's College, Montreal.) -I