IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 £. 
 ^ 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 1*0 12.0 
 
 
 IL25 flll 1.4 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1.6 
 
 V 
 
 /^ 
 
 -^<*'*- 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
5 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 m 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreiiroductions historiquas 
 
Tschnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notat tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa 
 
 Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia 
 copy which may ba bibliographically uniqMa, 
 which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha 
 raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa 
 tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Colourad covara/ 
 Couvartura da coulaur 
 
 I I Covara damagad/ 
 
 Couvartura andommagAa 
 
 Covars rastorad and/or iaminatad/ 
 Couvartura raataurte at/ou palliculAa 
 
 I I Covar titia miaaing/ 
 
 Le titra da couvartura manque 
 
 □ Colourad mapa/ 
 Cartaa giographiquas an coulaur 
 
 Colourad Ink (i.a. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encra da couleur (I.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 ReliA avac d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certainas pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration cpparaiaaant dans la taxte. 
 mala, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmAes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* la mallleur exemplaire 
 qu'll lui a At* poaaibla da aa procurer. Les details 
 da cat axampiaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue Mbllographiqua. qui peuvent modifier 
 une image raproduita. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dana la mAthode normaia de filmaga 
 aont IndiquAs ci-dassous. 
 
 r~~| Colourad pages/ 
 
 Pagaa da couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagAas 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur*es et/ou pelliculAes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxod/ 
 Pages d*color6es, tachetAes ou piquies 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d*tach*es 
 
 HShowthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualit* inigale de I'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totaiement ou partieiiement 
 obscurcies par un feuiiiet d'errata. une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t* film^es d nouveau de fa^on A 
 obtenir la meiiieure image possible. 
 
 Tl 
 to 
 
 Tl 
 
 P< 
 o1 
 
 fll 
 
 O 
 
 bt 
 t» 
 si 
 oi 
 fll 
 si 
 
 OI 
 
 T 
 si 
 
 T 
 
 ¥1 
 
 N 
 d 
 
 ei 
 b 
 ri 
 n 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* cl-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
TiM copy fllm«d hf hM b—n raproducad tttanks 
 to th« o«n«r<Mity of: 
 
 ■JnivtrsHy of Saskatchewan 
 Saskatoon 
 
 L'oxomplairo film4 f ut roproduit grico k la 
 g4n4ro«itA do: 
 
 Univtrsity of Saskatchawan 
 Saskatoon 
 
 Tho imago* appoaring haro ara ttia boat quality 
 poaaibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity 
 of tho original copy and in kaaping with tha 
 filming contract apacificatlona. 
 
 Laa imagaa auivantaa ont At* roproduitot avac la 
 plua grand aoln, compto tonu da la condition at 
 da la nattat* da I'axamplalra fiimA, at wx 
 conformiti avac laa condltiona du contrat da 
 filmaga. 
 
 Original copioa in printad papar eovora ara filmad 
 baglnning with tha front covor and anding on 
 tho laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 aion, or tho back covor whon appropriata. All 
 othor original copioa ara filmad baglnning on tho 
 f irat paga with a printad or illuatratad Impraa- 
 aion, and anding on tho laat paga with a printad 
 or Illuatratad impraaaion. 
 
 Laa axamplairaa origlnaux dont la couvorturo an 
 paplar aat Imprim4a aont fllmte an commonfant 
 par la pramiar plat at an tarminant aolt par la 
 darnlAra paga qui comporto una ampralnta 
 d'Impraaalon ou d'llluatratlon, soit par la aacond 
 plat, aalon la caa. Toua laa autraa axamplairaa 
 origlnaux aont filmte wn commandant par la 
 pramiAra iiaga qui comporto uno ampralnta 
 d'Impraaalon ou d'llluatration at an tarminant par 
 la darnlAra paga qui comporto uno tolla 
 ampralnta. 
 
 Tha laat racordad frama on oach microflcho 
 ahall contain tha symbol -^ (moaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or tho symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), 
 whichavar appllas. 
 
 Un daa symbolos sulvanta apparattra sur la 
 darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficho, salon la 
 caa: la symbols »»• signlfia "A SUIVRE", la 
 aymbolo ▼ signifio "FIN". 
 
 Mapa. plataa. charts, ate. may ba filmad at 
 diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to bo 
 antlraly includad in ono axpoaura ara filmad 
 baglnning in tha uppar laft hand cornor. loft to 
 right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa 
 raqulrad. Tha following diagrams illuatrata tha 
 mathod: 
 
 Laa cartaa. planchas. tablaaux. ate, pauvant Atra 
 fllmte k daa taux da reduction diff Arants. 
 Loraqua la documant aat trap grand pour Atra 
 raproduit on un soul cllchA. II ast fllmA A partir 
 da I'angla aupAriaur gaucha. da gaucha A drolta, 
 at da haut an bas, an pranant la nombra 
 d'Imagaa nAcassaira. Las diagrammaa suivants 
 lllustrant la mAthodo. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 

 ENGLAND OR ROME? 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE 
 
 \, . ♦ 
 
 Froii) the " Altar and the Throne. 
 
 >♦ 
 
 % 
 
 PRICE 10 Cents. 
 • » 
 
 97912" 
 
 MONTREAL 
 
 'itixTKD BY A; A. St«vi5N80M for thk Propbibtq 
 
 THH 1 HRdHK." 
 
 1871. 
 
 'X 
 
 <4it^ ^^'X 
 
 t-^L, 
 
■which:? 
 
 3g]IfiJU JlHO OB BOHS ? 
 
 A REVIEW OP THE 
 
 GUIBORD BURIAL CASE, 
 
 From the <* Altar and the Throne,** Montreal. 
 
 ■*? 
 
 In fulfilment of the promise made in our first number, we now 
 submit a short account of this cause cilehre, and in order that our 
 readers may thorouirhly understand the question, we have to go 
 back to the year 1844, when the Roman Catholics ot Montreal, 
 whether Irish or French Canadian, had not a single library or 
 reading room or place of meeting, for any purpose whatever, apart 
 from their churches. The feeling that this want should be sup- 
 plied induced a few French Canadian students to meet in that 
 year and lay the foundation of Vlnatitut Canadien, a literary 
 society having for its object the mutual improvement and educa- 
 tion of its members, through books, newspapers, and discussions 
 or debates. For several years prosperity attended the under- 
 taking, and the society obtained a special act of incorporation 
 in 18^3, (see Statutes of Canada, 16 vie, c. 261.) By 
 this act of incorporation minors of 17 years of age were accorded 
 all the rights pertaining to the exercise of membership. Such 
 was the rapid progress of this Institution that every city, town 
 and village wanted to have its Jnstitut Canadien ; that being a 
 synonimous term for the library, reading room and debating 
 society. The result of this was that the various faculties of the 
 mind were aroused and light began to dawn on dark places. Protes- 
 tants who enjoy from their very birth the exercise of the brain's 
 functions can scarcely realize the astonishing effect thus produced 
 on a class of men who had been trained to think that it was not 
 within their province to see anything that was not exhibited to 
 
» • 
 
 them by a " patented" divine in robes. The ** why*' and the 
 " wherefore" began to be heard, and they threatened Roman 
 Gatholii'ism as the Guy Pawkes powder plot did the Parliament 
 of England. About 1857 the Roman Catbolio authorities re- 
 alizing their position, decided upon the destruction of this danger- 
 ous focus, and began the attack under cover, and by raising side 
 issues. The first gun fired nt it was in the shape of a motion 
 to exclude all religious p:ipcrs, whether Roman Catholic or Pro- 
 testant. The object of this motion was to exclude the Witness 
 and Le Semeur Canadien for there was not then any Roman 
 Catholic religious paper properly speaking, if we except the True 
 Witness, which was at that date of no more account than it is 
 at the present. A fierce struggle ensued, discussion run high, 
 an amendment was made, und^out of a meeting of 300 was thrown 
 out early in th<) morning by a small majority. A second meeting 
 was held, and an amendment was again put, and and out of 300 
 votes there was a tie, when the casting vote was given in favor of 
 the amend'uent. The enemies of free thought acknowledged 
 their defeat ; the biiUot was then adopted when the advocates of 
 education carried everything before them, and the Institut was 
 triumphant. Jesuitical merchants were unable to induce their 
 clerks to vote with them ; and open warfare for the nonce was 
 at an end. Up to this time the instigator of the oppressive oppo- 
 sition was unknown, but two days after the decisive vote referred 
 to, bishop Hi urget published a long and elaborate pastoral letter 
 commanding every one to withdraw from the Institut, under yai ' 
 said to have beon decreed by the Council of Trent — Upwards of 
 IfjO members in tonlormity with this order, executed a solemn 
 act of secession in writing. — fhis was in 1858. 
 
 Then indeed did the promoters of the scheme of infallibility, 
 spread fanaticism amongst Roman Catholics, and the Institut 
 Canadien was t^oou visited by this foul pestilence, for whenever a 
 member found himself deprived of protection or of that strength 
 of mind which animated the arch-angel, he would encounter the 
 sweet face of a pi iust with the gratifying assurance that he could 
 neither partake of the communion, nor be married by his chuich 
 until he had withdrawn from V Institut Canadien. y 
 
 As long as u member was known to act uncompromisingly 
 
 >-• 
 
 Jr A 
 
 'K 
 
— 5 — 
 
 A« 
 
 • A 
 
 either by himself or by his immediate rehitivca or friends, every 
 thin; connected with his church affairs'was smooth and [comfort' 
 able ! and this brings us to the case of Quibord. 
 
 Guibord was a printer, a fellow apprentice with ex-mayor Work- 
 man and John Lovell, and although he did not ascend the ladder of 
 wealth with them, he nevertheless possessed that strong will neces- 
 sary to I he acquisition of wealth, had ambition been associated 
 with his unconquerable faculties of mind. Guibord was a 
 printer! he lived a printer, — he died a printer, not a wealthy 
 one indeed, for had wealth been his, the Roman Catholic Church 
 never would have selected him as the victim of its unrelenting 
 persecution. Guibord died in November 1869, at a time when 
 the bl-jsphemous thermometer of papal infallibility was indicating 
 a temperature of clerical fever heat, — at a time in fact when 
 every priest of Rome imagined that he was not without bin share 
 ol' in/aUibility. In selecting Guibord as its victim, the Church 
 of Rome singled out one whom it knew to be poor, one who 
 it knew, had no children, no brother not even a sister. It 
 singled out as its victim a poor journeyman printer, believing 
 that as he was poor his friends were also poor. Dut still io all 
 his poverty Heaven had blessed him with a wife, one who had 
 not forgotten her marriage vows — but loved her husband 
 though he was only a poor journeyman printer. She, alas, had 
 no brother, no friends but those of her poor husband, and it 
 required very little power of ratio-cination on the part of the 
 Honiish priests to consider his case as one most admirably 
 adapted for disphtying their authority. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Cemetery of Montreal is on the slope of 
 Mount Royal, is approached from the road leading to the pic, 
 turesque village of C6te des Neiges, and consists of two parts- 
 the one known as consecrated ground — the other as " the potter's 
 field" — the latter mentioned being the final depository of drunk- 
 ards whose corpses have been dragged from the gutter, and tha 
 spot where murderers waA friendless suicides are throwu with dis- 
 gust, in eternal oblivion — here the pious church of Rome was 
 willing to bury Guibord the poor printer — here and here alone, 
 and this, not, because he was a murderer, not because he was a 
 drunkard, not because he was a criminal, not because he was a 
 
 »iS%:m0 l k.i'iimi« a '«iwj mm0'i>''''''''^*^ 
 
 mm 
 
f 
 
 •aicide, but hkoaubk Ouiborp, tiir poor, FRirNDi.KHS, jora- 
 
 NErMAN PRINTER, WAS A MEMBER OF l'InsTITUT CaNADIEN. 
 Yes ! ohristian burial w is ret'uHod him by liin cburch and liin poor 
 bones the remnants of his mortality were obliged to be taken 
 where ? to a protestant cemetery whose doors were as wide opon 
 for their reception, as those of the Roman Catholic were closely 
 barred. In that protestant cemetery those poor bones still remain 
 ft livini^, terrible protest against Rome's intoleranno. 
 
 How striking the contrast between the poor friendless Printer, 
 Guibord, and the rich suicide, Joseph .lodoio. The one was a 
 criminal in the eyes of his church, — the potter's field was nil thnt 
 was open to him, — his crime was p »Terty ! The othwr, who took 
 that which none but God has a rijjht to take, — his life, — wiis 
 buried with all the pomp and show which wealth can procure in 
 the romish church, — the wealthy suicide was buried midst the 
 tolling of bells, the burning of tapers and incense. — was buried 
 in consecrated ground, — while Guibord, who died a natural drath, 
 was oonsiderrd a fit subject for the potter's field ; but Quibord 
 was a Printer, a poor but honest journeyman Printer, while 
 Jodoin was a wealthy self murderer, whose blood-stained " gold« 
 en fleece" was of more value to the Roman wolves than the 
 honest unstained "home-spun" of the poor, friendless, but now, 
 enver to be forgotten Printer, Guibord. 
 
 It was in consequence of this refusal to bury her husband that 
 the widow Guibord was forced to apply to our Courts of law 
 in order to compel the cur^ and church wardens of the parish 
 church of Notre Dume of Montreal to give her husband's remains 
 burial in the Roman Catholic Cemetery. 
 
 The proceedings for this purpose adopted, were an application 
 for a writ of mandamus ordering the burial of Guibord's remains. 
 A prolonged argument of seventeen days took place before the 
 Honorable Mr. Justice Mondelet, senior Judge of the Superior 
 Court for Lower Canada, sitting in Montreal, resulting in the 
 granting of the widow's prayer, by ordering a peremptory writ 
 of mandamus to issue, commanding the cur4 and church 
 wardens to bury the deceased within six days, and to report the 
 execution of the writ. 
 
 The arguments of counsel and the remarks of the learned and 
 
 f ' ■» 
 
JOtfB« 
 
 [ill poor 
 
 taken 
 
 le open 
 
 closely 
 
 I remain 
 
 'rintor, 
 
 )e was a 
 
 all thot 
 
 ■ho took 
 
 V,— wn8 
 
 ocure in 
 
 idnt tho 
 
 8 buried 
 
 al death, 
 
 Ouibord 
 
 3r, while 
 
 d ♦' gold- 
 
 than the 
 
 but now, 
 
 band that 
 ;s of law 
 he parish 
 9 remaina 
 
 pplicntion 
 ) remains, 
 before the 
 Superior 
 ng in the 
 ptory writ 
 i church 
 •eport the 
 
 nmed and 
 
 f ' 
 
 -7- 
 
 independent jud^e, and the judji^'ocnt itiielf deserve speciid notice 
 but unfortunately they are so voluminous, that were we to repeat 
 them our rendurs might think that wo were testing the extent of 
 their pativnoc. 
 
 The Church of Rome was not di<<posed to m knowledge civil 
 law, particularly when its utteruiiocs wore adverao to its extra- 
 vagant pretensions that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction over 
 matters strictly ecolosiiistical, and accordingly an appeal from the 
 decision of Mr. Justice Mondelet was taken to the Court of 
 Review, oonoisting of tho ITonoraMe Justices Briitiiei.ot, 
 M'Kay and Turrancb ; who after having heard counsel and 
 maturely deliberate', reversed the judgment of tho Honorable 
 Mr. Jubtice Mondelet, and di-snns^ed the action or application: 
 
 I St. Becnute the action nhoald hive been brought ugainnt the 
 curi peraoniilli/ — and 2ndly. Became the writ wat informal. 
 
 II is well known in every country that judges are to be found 
 who are afraid of making theniholves disagreuble to the rdlinq 
 PiiWERS whether they be king, clergy, or mob, and these experience 
 DO great difficulty in discovering Home loophole or question of form 
 by which they wash their hands of an embarassing case. Such 
 was Pilate's example, when he tonsked hi$ handu of innocent 
 bloody and gave up the Son of God to a baud of relentless priests, 
 to shed his blood. 
 
 Tho discussion of the technicalities on which the Court of 
 Review based their judgment would present very little interest 
 to the non-professional reader and therefore we will not enter into 
 then I here. 
 
 Up to this stage the widow of the poor journeyman printer 
 GuiBORD had been able to avail herself of a charitable provision 
 of law, by which an indigent suitor is allowed to sue in forma 
 pauperis but having lobt her action, an appeal from what was con- 
 isidored an unjust judgment could not be taken unless security for 
 the costs oi huch appeal, in case of failure, were first put in, and 
 this it was supposed would present an insurmountable barrier to 
 her further proceedings, even though she had lawyers so devoted 
 to her cause as to act gratuitously. IJut sympathy had been aroused 
 and the tyrants of Rome and their sycophants were not yet allow- 
 ed to proclaim a final victory over the poor printer Guibobd, for 
 
 tj lilkv m 
 
— 8 — 
 
 <lje required Rccuritj was given and tljc dcwrcd npppnl — nn npponl 
 to the Court of Queen's Bencli — wax r|uiekly tnkcn, nnd lierc it 
 was that this now cclchrated cuu.so assumed a new shnpe and a 
 greater importuiicc. 
 
 The decision of tho Court of Review had produced an iiU' 
 pre^sion on the winds of the friends of the poor widow, and upon 
 the luinds of u large class of tho community, that tho Uoni;m 
 Catholic clerical influence hud so much wci«;ht over the judges 
 in Review that they had, instead of pronouncing on tho merits of 
 the case, resorted to technicalities ruised contrary to the most 
 positive enactments of the Code of Civil Procedure, objecrtions 
 which should have been dismissed at once, even though under, 
 other circumstances they might have been well founded in law 
 objections which the Honorable Mr. Justice Mondelet had tho 
 manliness and intrepidity to dispose of summarily. 
 
 To make this mutter understood by our non professional rotid- 
 era, we would illustrate the matter thus: — It is very clear that 
 the endorser on a prommissory note is liable to its payment, pro' 
 vided the note wag protested on the third dny of its maturity. 
 If, however such note was only protested ten days after maturity 
 DO Court could muintain an action against the endorser. So in 
 matters of form tho Code of Civil Procedure provides thut all 
 these shall be t;'kcn advantago of within four days of the return 
 of the action, whereas in the Quibord matter the Defendants 
 pleaded ten days after the return, that the form uf the Writ 
 toa» defective, that the Writ itself should have contained the 
 command to bury Guibord. His H(»nor Mr. Justice Torrunce 
 admitted that^ since 1849, when n Statute was passed to amend 
 the law relating to Writs of Prerogative, the uniform practice 
 had been to insert the order in a petition annexed to the Writ, 
 and not in the Writ itself, but, nevertheless, he concurred in u 
 judgment which dismissed the action, became it was sh'iped'in 
 accordance with that nn if onn practice, and this, on an objection 
 raised ten days after the return of the action. 
 
 The action of the widow Guibord was knoWn in France, in 
 Spain, in Austria, and generally in Reman Catholic countries, 
 under the name of Appel Comme d' Abus, appeal against the 
 abuses of the Church. In 1864 the syllabus decreed a number 
 
 f> 
 
 i>' 
 
 1 
 
 ♦ ?» 
 
 4 k 
 
— 9 — 
 
 •re it 
 inii a 
 
 In im- 
 ujwm 
 Ionian 
 jnd<i;n» 
 nits of 
 most 
 
 lections 
 under, 
 in law 
 
 kad the 
 
 » 
 
 ■I 
 
 * * 
 
 4 * 
 
 of new doctrinoK which made it a mnttcr of conscience nnd of 
 cternfil con.sp(|ucncoN forjudges who acknowledged the authority 
 of the Mi/lltihna to didmifui the action of tlie widow Guibord. In 
 submitting their c<if;e, the Dcfendantn' counsel formnlly and openly 
 took the •;round that the Church, that 18 the Dcfendunta, were 
 not nmonable to the Civil Courts. The Roman Cutholio judge 
 in tho Court of lieview, the Honorable Mr. Justice Berthelot, 
 went fuithor than his Protestant colleagues in disuiisaing the 
 action. He accepted in its full extent tho doctrine of tho iude* 
 p ndcnce of tho Church in the question submitted, and*the Ap* 
 pcllunt anticipated, in consequence, similar views with tho four 
 Romnn Catholic judges in the Court of Quood's Beooh sitting 
 in appeal. 
 
 There is at Brst 8i<rht something; plausible in that opinion which 
 may deceive a ri<j:ht minded man if he be nut on his guard. Mr. 
 Justice MacKay seems to have fallen a victim to thist specious as- 
 pect uf the case, although his jud,t'r;iunt is not founded on the 
 opinion virtually expressed by him. He doubted, rightly tooi 
 whether a Methodist could force the Church of England tu bury 
 his relative, also a Methodist, in their burying ground. 
 
 It is not because the church is independent of the Civil 
 Authorities that tho Church of England could resist suoh a de- 
 mand, but because the deceased Methodist was not a member of 
 
 the Church of England, and had no right to demand burial in 
 her cemetery. 
 
 The question, ns it presented itself, was, whether a church which 
 had acknowledged a man as one of its members during his whole 
 life time, — a church whicti would have forced that man by com- 
 pulsory process of the Civil Courts to pay tithes, to contribute 
 to the building or repairs of tho church, and even to paying for 
 the cemetery ground, is so independent of sill authority that it 
 Can refuse u decent burial to the remains of that man, and that 
 his family can have no recourse against that church ? 
 
 The affirmative being the doctrine of Judge Berthelot und of 
 the dogma promulgated by the xylliihui^ the Appellant considered 
 it a matter of paramount importance to know in limine whether 
 the Roman Catholic judges m Appeal considered themselves 
 bound by the si/Uabus, for if they di'l, anJ if thv decision of the 
 
 fc*^ 
 
 % 
 
— 10 — 
 
 Roman Catholic Bishop was final and not 6UJ>ceptibIe of Appeal, 
 the Appellant conftidereJ it would be a waste of time and of legid 
 research, to show that the rcfusiil to burirUihiibord was unfound- 
 ed. Should f>uch a doctrine prevail it would follow that the 
 Roman Catholics of this part of Canada are eminently privil- 
 edged inasmuch as they would not recognize any authority as 
 higher than the Church. The Anglican Bishop in Q ebuc was 
 impleaded for refusing to bury a child, and though the case was 
 dismissed it was on the ground that the Anglican Church had 
 not acknowledged as its cemetery the piece of land, wherein the 
 father wished to compel the Bishop to bury the child. No one 
 ever dreamt of denying the jurisdiction of the Court. 
 
 In the Guibord matter, however, it is different. The preten- 
 sions of the Romish Church are (exposed ai* follows, by the De- 
 fendants pleadings: — By the treaty of Cession of Canada of 
 ]7t)3, it is declared that the Roman Catholics shall have the 
 free exercise uf their religion ainsording to the rites of the Church 
 of Rome. Fro.ii this it follows that the Roman Catholic bishop 
 is amenable to no authority in the country when he decides that 
 a man has no right to Se buried in a Catholic cemetery. Fur- 
 thermore, the Church of Rome has deemed that it exerciser its 
 authority independently of all civil governments, and other doc- 
 trines which will be mentioned presently. 
 
 Can Protestants look with indifference to the settlement of 
 such pretensions, set up as they are against the Guibnrd action ? If 
 it be truel were such a pret<intion to be allowed, the Roman 
 Catholic Church which already enjoys, the exclusive right of 
 forcing its members by compulsory process of the couris, to 
 support it, would possess an immense power of cohesior and 
 coercion, not only over its own mnmbers, but indirectly over the 
 members of other churches, for on pain of bein^ buried like a 
 dog, a Roi.iau Cat.holio might be induced to join organizations uf 
 hostility or propogandism against the members of other churches. 
 To look upon this as a mere supposition is a grave error, for it 
 was fully proved to be a matter of fact in the very Guibord case 
 itself. Guibord was a member of a benevelent society, — in 
 wliich none but Roman Catholics were allowed to participate* 
 Several of its members gained their living and sonscquently their 
 
 n 
 
 e 
 
 d 
 
 I 
 
 e 
 < 
 
 ,iU 
 
 «•« 
 
—11 — 
 
 )pcal, 
 legiil 
 found' 
 It the 
 )rivil- 
 Ity as 
 to was 
 te W)is 
 jhhud 
 In the 
 \o one 
 
 »,u 
 
 means of supporting the society, — exclusively from Protestant 
 employers. Without enquirini; how such societies are propa<;an- 
 dist organizations, it cannot be denied but that their influence 
 lends iclfit and show to the Romish Churoh. Tii public demon- 
 strations, such as the procession of Corpm Chrinti, or when the 
 St. Patrick's Society or the St. Jean Baptiste Society celebrates 
 its anniversary ; we see a great concourse of people filling and 
 blocking up the streets. Now, whc compose those crowds ? 
 These very Roman Catholic benevolent societies formed under 
 the sanction of parliamentary incorporation, for the glorifica- 
 tion and strengthening of the cords of the Romish Church ! 
 Each trade is formed into one of these societies, and of these 
 societies it is said fully twenty-five are in existence, with an 
 average membership of 500. 
 
 Leaving our readers to connect these statements with the pro* 
 ceedings in the Court of Appeals, we proceed with our narrative. 
 
 At the opening of the December term (1870) of the Court 
 of Appeals, Joseph Ooutre, Q.C., one of the counsel for the Ap- 
 pellant, (Mrs. (luibord,) challenged the four Roman Catholic 
 judges as being disqualified on the ground that they belonged to 
 the Church of Rome, which had by the syllabus oi' 1864 promul- 
 gated the following dogmas : — 
 
 1st. That the ecclesiastic authority was exercised independ- 
 ently of any permit or consent of the civil government. 
 
 2nd. That the State and the Queen were not the souroe of 
 all rights ; and that its or their powers were limited. 
 
 3rd. That the State, even when it was governed by a Pro- 
 testant Sovereign, possesses no authority, not even indirectly, 
 over matters of religion ; that in consequence it has neither the 
 right of exequatur, nor that of Appel comme dAlusy (Appeal 
 against ecclesiastical abuses). 
 
 4th. That in matters of conflict between the two powers, (the 
 State and the ecclesiastical authority), the latter prevails in pref- 
 ference to the State. 
 
 5th. That the civil power has no right to interfere in matters 
 of religion, morals or spiritual things ; that the instructions con- 
 tained in pastoral letters (even, we suppose, if they coutained 
 
 ■WMH 
 
— 12 — 
 
 libels or instigations of high treason) cannot be submitted to its 
 decisions. 
 
 6th. That Kings are amenable to the jurisdiction of the 
 Church, and that they have no jurisdiction above the Church 
 when questions of jurisdiction are to be decided. 
 
 7th. Tbat the Roman Catholic religion should be the only 
 religion recognized by the State, and that, to the exclusion of uU 
 other religions. 
 
 8th. That the Romish Church has the right of physical coer- 
 cion, and possesses a direct and indirect temporal power. 
 
 9th. That the immunity of the Romish Church and of eccles- 
 iastical persons has no origin in the civil law. 
 
 The recusation or challenge, after enumerating these dogmas* 
 8t ited that by a recent proclamation of the same church, its head* 
 the Pope, has been declared infallible, and that he must be obeyed 
 as if he were God himself, being superior to all Kin<jrs and 
 Sovereigns It then required the judges challenged to declare 
 whether they considered themselves bound in conscience by such 
 commands of their church 
 
 This recusation is framed with considerable precision. Ac- 
 cording to our Code of Civil Procedure, the judges challenged 
 Ciiimot decide on the merits of the recusation, they cannot even 
 be present in Court when the decision is given. 
 
 In presenting the petition of recusation, Mr. Doutre said he 
 hoped the measure he was adopting would not be looked upon as 
 implying want of either respect or conOdence. Quite a number 
 of persons were in doubt as to whether our judges were the rep- 
 repentatires of the Queen, carrying out the spirit of the laws 
 cn.icted under Her sanction and those of her predecessors, or 
 whether they were not, in certain matters, governed by the « hurch 
 authority whose seat is at Rome ! 
 
 Chief Justice Diival remarked that it was giving too much 
 importance to the imbeciles who thought that judges recognized 
 any authority but that of the Queen, and the laws enacted under 
 Her authority. 
 
 Mr. Doutre replied that unfortunately these imbeciles were so 
 numerous and occupied so mmy positions in life that until the 
 judges would themselves define their stand point, their decisions 
 
 I St 
 
 ■^ ^•. 
 
 » 
 
— IS — 
 
 to its 
 
 lof the 
 l^hurch 
 
 «• 
 
 |e only 
 of all 
 
 il coer- 
 
 eccles- 
 
 Ac- 
 
 
 I n 
 
 ' 4i ^ 
 
 .1. 
 
 wonld remain in miny cases without mor.il woij»ht, and therefore, 
 after due consideration, he thous^ht it essonti.il bRpore arguing his 
 case, to koow whether the judges felt themselves competent to hear 
 him and render justice to his client. The condition of the Roman 
 Catholics since the cession of the country had been altered by 
 decrees of new dogmas, some of which if they were adhered to 
 by the judges, would prevent those of the Roman Catholic faith 
 from applying the law of the country. By Chap. 83, §14., George 
 III, which confirmed the treaty of cesssion, Roman Catholics 
 were granted the free exercise of their religion, but subject to 
 the supremacy of the Sovereign. Several articles of the si/Uabut 
 declared it to be a heresy to believe that any Sovereign had 
 authority over the laws decreed in Rome, and that in a conflict 
 of jurisdiction in civil matters, it was another heresy to recognize 
 in the civil law the power of pronouncing upon such jurisdiction. 
 The action of the Appellant was, Mr. Doutre said, specially 
 mentioned in the syllabus, to be proscribed, and it was worthy of 
 anathema to make use of that recourse. The judge that would 
 receive such an action, and pronounce favorably upon it, would 
 be liable to anathema and excommunication. He knew very welli 
 he continued, that none of the judges considered themselves bound 
 by anything but the laws of the country; but in the present 
 state of religious exaggeration, his own conviction in that respect 
 was not a sufficient guarantee for his client, or for the public. 
 He had, he said, no doubt that the answers the judges would 
 give to the facts mentioned in the petition would be such as would 
 put the Appellant in a position to withdraw the exception, which 
 she would be happy to be able to do. The opportunity he con- 
 sidered a precious one, wliich should not bo lost to clearly define 
 the position of our Roman Catholic judges in mixed questions, 
 and also to put an end for ever to the injurious doubts wliich 
 are thrown out against their indcpentlence and their true position 
 to the Sovereign who appoints,a!id to the other who claims authority 
 over their consciences with the rights to define their jurisdiction 
 and hurl defiance against the authority of our Queen, our par- 
 liaments, and our laws. 
 
 The Chief Justice ordered the Clerk of the Court to take the 
 
 
 mmmumiKm 
 
— 14 — 
 
 pet tion, but not to fyle it in the records of the Court, until fur- 
 ther orders. 
 
 This recusation took place at the beginning of the term and 
 consisted of four separate petitions, that is, one for each judge. 
 
 After four or five days consultation, Mr. Justice Badgley, the 
 only judge unchallenged, suggested to Mr. Doutre that he should 
 withdraw the petitions and present them de novo on account of 
 the absence from the bench of one of the judges, at the time they 
 were first presented, but to this Mr. Doutre did not accede. 
 
 However, the last day of the term arrived, and then the five 
 judges concurred in a judgment, declaring the petitions inadrais- 
 sable inasmuch as the charges contained in them amounted to 
 accusations against the judges of treason and perjury. 
 
 Mr. Doutre thereupon moved for an Appeal to Her Majesty's 
 Privy Council. No decision was given on this motion, but the 
 Court suggested that a rule be taken returnable on the first day 
 of March, a course which evidently did not meet with the learned 
 counsel's approbation, as he has not adopted it, preferring, as we 
 understand, to allow the motion to remain as a protest against 
 the judgment and to proceed to the argument, so as to bring the 
 whole matter in Appeal before Her Majesty's Privy Council, 
 should the pretentions of the widow Guibord be unsustained. 
 
 The case is, while we write, being argued before the count 
 on its merits, and the judgment will probably be rendered in the 
 month of June next — a judgment to which our readers will 
 look with no little interest. 
 
'* 
 
 97912 
 
 tH\S BOOK 
 
 ql1l^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '■.'--■:/'' 
 
 
 * . 
 
 
 
ir 
 
 V ^ 
 
 X 
 
 / 
 
 The Altar and the Throne. ■ 
 
 ■♦-♦- 
 
 THIS Weekly Journul published ii^ the interests of the Loyal 
 Orange Association of British America, is issued EVERY 
 WEDNESDAY, and circulated largely throughout the Dominion 
 of Canada. 
 
 It is not published with a view of perpetuating national ' an- 
 imoBities, but on the contrary has for its objects. the advocacy of \ 
 free speech, to be shown in all matters of religion, and the treat- 
 ment of all loyal British subjects on an equal footing, irrespective 
 of creed. % 
 
 It will seek to secure Protestant unity throughout the land, 
 and thereby clicek the attempts.tbat arc been made to restrict our 
 civil and religions liberty. 
 
 The maintenance of the connection with the mother country 
 will bo constantly upheld, and all attempts to dismember the 
 British Empire will be strenuously opposed. As its name in- 
 dicjites it will be devoted to our religion and our Qjieen. 
 
 E«ch number will contain all the Orange News, the Orange 
 Constitution, and a tale founded on the connection of the As- 
 sociation. 
 
 There will also be" a hous-ehold corner for the family. 
 
 The general news will also be supplied. 
 
 T< rms^ ?2.00 per- annum; payable yearly, or half yearly in 
 adviince. 
 
 ^^^Ijattf^e^ BROWNE, 
 
 uwKhn 
 
 MoxTBEAt, March, IKl 
 
 cct. 
 
 .1F**>"'V1*'