The Jesuits' Estates Bill

Article Title
The Jesuits' Estates Bill
Page Number
1, 2
Article Type
Article Contents
THE JESUITS’ ESTATES BILL. Speech of the Minister of Justice. The Position of the Government Defended in one of the Greatest Efforts of the Present Session. (Continued.) The next step was on the 7th of May, 1888, and that is to be found in the letter that was written by Mr. Mercier, premier of Quebec, and I think these negotiations have been very much misunderstood in this discussion. That letter states, among other things, that the holy father, by withdrawing and reserving to himself the settlement of that question virtually HAD CANCELLED THE AUTHORITY, the only authority which existed in the province of Quebec to negotiate with the government. The first minister said: "My predecessors in the government deemed it their duty in 1876, I believe, to order the demolition of the college, and the division of the property into building lots in view of an immediate sale, which, however, did not take place owing to certain representations from exalted personages at the time. To avoid further difficulties, as suppose, my predecessors let the matter lie, and allowed the property to be so neglected that it has become a grazing ground and a receptacle for filth, so much so that it is openly said in Quebec that the matter has become a public scandal. Under these circumstances I deem it my duty to ask your eminence if you see any objection to the government selling the property rending a final settlement of Jesuits' estates." My hon friends so far will see that it was not a petition on the part of the government of the province of Quebec asking permission from a foreign potentate to sell the property, a permission which they did not need because by the law of the province they had the power sell it, and they frequently, from year to year, did sell portions of it and put it in the public treasury. But the object of the asking was that when they brought it to the market again they should not be met by the united protest of the bishops whom he had power to control, and therefore when the first minister said: "Will you permit this property to be sold, pending a final settlement of the Jesuits’ estates?" It simply asking that that protest should no longer face him in the public market, and that there should be a consent on the part of all parties asserting any claim whatever, even if it might be only the shadow of a moral claim. He says : "It is openly said in the province of Quebec that the matter has become a public scandal. Under these circumstances I deem it my duty to ask your Eminence if you have any serious objection to the government selling the property pending a final settlement of the Jesuit’s estates." The premier was endeavoring to arrange a settlement beneficial to all concerned. He continued: "The government would look upon the proceeds of the sale as a special deposit to be disposed of hereafter in accordance with the agreement to be entered into between the parties interested with the sanction of the Holy See." Simply this, that all parties claiming the property, or claiming any right in respect of it shall agree that the property shall be sold and the proceeds kept inviolate, so that nobody having a claim on the property shall be prejudiced, but shall have a claim against the fund, precisely the same transaction that every business man having a claim of that nature with regard to his adversary. Then the letter goes on to say: "As it will perhaps be necessary upon this matter to consult the legislature of our province, which is to be convened very shortly, I respectfully solicit an immediate reply." We are told in sarcastic tones tonight that it was absolutely necessary to go to the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it might only perhaps be necessary to consult the legislature of the province of Quebec. Now, I say when we know the facts with regard to that property THE CRITICISM BECOMES UNFAIR. The government of the province of Quebec had already power to sell these estates by law, and, therefore, unless it were agreed upon with the head of the church that the property should be sold under these conditions, and the agreement made to validate this moral claim and put aside the funds to meet it, there was no necessity for consulting the legislature at all. If the authorities to whom the letter had been addressed had declined the negotiations it would not have been necessary to have consulted the legislature, because the provincial government had all the legal power the legislature could give them. It was only in the event of a compromise being arrived at, and the payment of money being involved, that it was necessary to consult the legislature at all. And yet this matter has been put to this house this very day as if, forsooth, the fair and true meaning of that was that it was only, perhaps, necessary to consult the legislature, but at all events it was necessary to consult the Holy See. Now, the answer of Cardinal Simeoni to that was in these words: "I hasten to notify you that, having laid your request before the Holy Father at the audience yesterday, his Holiness was pleased to grant permission to sell the property which belonged to the Jesuit Fathers before they were suppressed. Upon the express condition, however, that the sum to be received be deposited and left at the free disposal of the Holy See." THE SECRETARY'S REPLY. The secretary, replying to this moral claim, says: "I quite agree you shall sell that lot in the city of Quebec, but if you sell it, place the fund to my credit in order that we may know where it is when we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to what shall be done with it." And the answer of the first minister of Quebec is that he declines to accede to that, but proposes the ordinary solution of business people, especially of a government dealing with the question. “I agree to hold the funds myself until this dispute shall be settled and the final answer received from Rome,” which is declared here to be an assumption of authority on the part of the Pope in contravention of the Supremacy act, and which we are told actually trails the Queen’s honor in the dust, is that the Pope allows the government to retain the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuits’ estates as a special deposit to be disposed of hereafter with the sanction of the holy see. When the authority representing, as I have said, the two rival claimants agrees to the proposition, it is protested here that the language of that, which is "he allows" - meaning evidently consent - is presumptuous. It is the same thing. The government retain the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuits’s estates. He allows it simply as the arbitrator between the two contesting parties. He allows it as the representative solely, as the controlling power between the two contesting parties. He allows it as head of the church, if his choice has a right to guide their decision. Yet it is said that he exercises a prerogative as a foreign potentate, which is in derogation of the prerogative of her majesty. It seems to me when we know the facts with regard to the situation of this property and of the two rival claimants with regard to it, it is impossible to understand, and almost impossible for ingenuity to misrepresent, the pre-amble of this act, as unfortunately it has been misrepresented during the long discussion which has taken place since the act was passed in various parts of the country. THE LETTER OF THE 27TH MARCH, 1888, contains this passage with regard to the conclusion arrived at in Rome; affirmatively in favor of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, and in accordance with the method prescribed in other places, that is to say, that the Fathers of the Society of Jesus treat in their own name with the civil government in such a manner, however, as to leave full liberty to the Holy See to dispose of the property as it deems advisable and consequently that they should be very careful that no condition or clause should be inserted in the official deed of the concession of such property which could in any manner affect the libertof of the Holy see." As I have said, down to that time the power of attorney which enabled anyone to negotiate with regard to this question had been withdrawn and in that act of the state of Rome there was simply a new authority given to a new attorney, namely, the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, to treat with the province of Quebec, and a stipulation, not that the province should be subject to any conditions, bat that if there should be a conveyance made of it to any parties, the Jesuit fathers on the one side or the hierarchy on the other, in settlement of the claim, these parties should not take a deed which would preclude him from giving a final decision as to the way in which the proceeds ought to be divided between them. Then in the letter of the first minister of Quebec, dated 1st May, 1888, he distinctly stipulates that he is not recognizing any civil, or, as we would call it, any legal obligation, but merely a moral obligation in this respect. He asks: That you will grant to the government of the province of Quebec a full, complete, perpetual concession of all the property which may have belonged in Canada, under whatever title, to the fathers of the old society; and that you will renounce to all rights generally whatsoever upon such property and the revenues therefrom in favor of our province, the whole as well in the name of the old order of Jesuits; and if your present corporation is in the name of the pope, of the sacred college of the propaganda, and of the Roman Catholic church in general. THE REFERENCE TO THE POPE. And then follows the clause to which, above all others, exception is taken, and to which I will ask the special attention of the house: "7. That any agreement made between you and the government of the province will be binding only in so far as it shall be ratified by the pope and the legislature of this province." Now, when we look at the act itself, when we see what the government of Quebec asked the legislature of the province to do, when we see that they asked the legislature of Quebec to accept in extinction of this moral claim, whatever it is worth, the sum of $400,000, we cease to be surprised and we cease to be deceived as regards the effect of that provision of the statute. The ministry of Quebec were dealing, as I have said, with the two-rival claimants, the hierarchy and the Society of Jesus. They were dealing also with a third party, who occupied the position of mediator by consent between those two, and the first minister of Quebec stipulated that before the province should be bound to pay one dollar of the money they should have conveyed in the first place from the fathers of the society, and, in the second place, from the Pope himself, and in the third place, from the Sacred College of Propaganda and the Roman Catholic Church in general, and that, before they should be bound to pay one dollar of that money, nay, before he should ask the Legislature of Quebec to authorize him to pay one dollar, he should be in a position to say I have obtained a complete release of all the parties who forever after can assert the slightest right or title, the slightest claim, legal or moral, in regard to these estates. Could he have done less? Could he have said, I asked the Legislature of Quebec for authority to pay this money without obtaining a conveyance from the society? When he had contested every inch of the way the claim of the Jesuits to a settlement, would he have left outstanding a claim superior to that? No sir, and I say it without fear of contradiction that this provision, No. 7, making the agreement binding on the Pope’s ratification, and to which such grave exception has been taken, is a distinct provision against the authority of the Pope, and not in favor of the authority of the Pope. (Hear, hear.) THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISION. The effect of the provision was this. While I am willing to offer $400,000 I am not willing to be bound until your master agrees to accept it. I will not pay a dollar of that money until every one of you gives me your deed; and until the greatest superior you have on earth gives me his deed. Until I get that I will not ask the legislature of Quebec to give you a single dollar, and yet because the legislature demanded that before they should place that money at the disposal of the governor-in-council, the society should give the deed and that the highest authority they recognized on earth should give his deed, too, and the college of the propoganda, who had nothing to do with it, but to advise his holiness the pope, should also give their deeds, and every step on his part down to that point should be without prejudice to the rights of the province of Quebec. I am not dealing with any legal theories on this question, I am not devising an excuse for the legislature of Quebec, but I say that the legislature of Quebec so understood it. It was so explained to them. I hold before me a statement which Mr. Mercier made to the legislature, and on which statement they passed the bill. WHAT MR. MERCIER SAID. He says: "In the first place, sir, we must not mistake the bearing of this declaration, nor forget that it was inserted as a protection." The legislature of Quebec passed, as a protection on the statement of their first minister, passed the bill unanimously, and yet, months after it passed, we are to put a different interpretation on what their interpretation was, and ask his excellency, a stranger to that legislature and their motives, to decide that it was not their true motive at all, that it was not a protection but a distinct challenge of the supremacy of the Queen. To any serious objection he says it, however slight, may disappear, for it is we, the ministers, who insisted on it. It was in abnegation to the authority of the Holy See, in order not to give effect to the transaction unless it was sanctioned by the religious authority in the person of the Pope. And it is easy, he says, to understand why. In all important treaties made by mandatories and agents, ratification must be made by the principal, that is, the mandatory. Thus, for example, take what concerns me personally, what concerns ministers, what it is usual to state in resolutions and letters, that the transaction will not avail unless sanctioned by the legislature. Well, the Rev. Father Ferguson, who was charged by the holy see to settle this question with us, is only an agent authority. And so that there may be no misunderstanding, so that the transaction may be final, so that the settlement may no longer be open to discussion by the religious authorities, we require that the pope shall ratify the agreement. There is no question of having the law sanctioned by the pope. Let us not play upon words. The law will be sanctioned by the lieutenant governor, and it will take effect within the limits of the agreement. That is to say, sir, that it the pope does not ratify the arrangement there will be neither interest nor principal paid, but we shall then say to the religious authorities, You appointed an agent to settle this question, we came to an understanding, and if you do not ratify the act of your agent it is your own fault, but we, the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, through the constituted authorities, have done our part, have kept our promise. I am pleased to believe that the importance of the precaution taken by us will be understood, but once more if there is any serious objection to that part of the matter, it is very easy to come to an understanding. But in that case we must substitute something equivalent. What shall we put? We must after all put something to express that the transaction will not avail till the pope ratifies it. Well, sir, we said the pope intentionally. We did not say the congregation of the propoganda. We did not say the secretary of state. We said the pope. We declare that the ratification be given by the head of the church in order that all those interested may be bound, and sir, when we know that THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE PROVINCE, when we know it from the statutes and from the correspondents, and when we have it also in the declaration of the first minister himself, an explanation accepted by both sides of the house, for be it remembered, as Hon. Mr. Mitchell said last night, the act was passed unanimously, and more than that, the first minister was not asked to substitute anything else for the mention of the pope’s name. We are asked to advise his excellency that all this had a different meaning, and that the legislature of Quebec did not mean what it really said. I admit it would have been better that the reference to the Pope should not have appeared on the face of the bill, that it would have been better if the first minister of Quebec had adopted the suggestion of obtaining the same result in a different manner. (Hear, hear.) But I do say that the result there reached in whatever form of words it is a fair and proper result, a result guarding all the rights of the province, and that when it comes to a question of advising disallowance or allowance, it is not to be on the form of the words, but according to what we know the true meaning was and what we know of the act itself. Now, sir, let me call the attention of the house again before I leave the subject of that act, to the fact that all the contention which has been made with regard to the necessity for disallowance, has been on OBJECTIONS TO THE PREAMBLE of the act. In the history of disallowance in this country, in the history of our own statutes in the mother country, and scores of them we know were disallowed, I think the records will be searched in vain to find an act disallowed because the preamble was offensive to anybody. I do not dispute for a moment the proposition of my hon. friend from Muskoka that legally the preamble is a part of the act. So is the title part of the act, so are the head notes of actions part of the act. But has anyone heard of the executive under the British constitution being asked to disallow an act because some one does not like the title or the head note ? The preamble is a part of the act for the purpose of interpreting anything which is doubtful in the act. There is nothing in this act for which interpretation is needed, and I distinguish in applying that argument, which is the most trivial and technical objection which could be taken to the act, between a preamble which says that certain correspondence has between the premier and the pope of and the preamble which embodies the principles of an obnoxious measure. No one can doubt from the discussions in the house and out of it that nine-tenths of the demands for disallowance have arisen from the fact that in March, 1888, there came from Rome a telegram stating that the pope allows the government to retain the proceeds of the sale of the Jesuits’ estates, forgetting, divorced as it was from the current events, delivered from all other connection and forgetting the true meaning, and being misled by a supposition justified by what appears on the face of the despatch, that it was no assertion of authority on his part. As I said before, nine-tenths of the agitation for disallowance of the act comes from the fact THAT A TELEGRAM CAME FROM HOME and that this set asserts that this telegram did come, although in the four corners of the act there is not a word based upon it, and all the act itself is to ratify and confirm the agreement arrived at between Father Turgeon and the first minister of the province of Quebec, the terms of which were that the $400,000 were to be given to the two litigants on the closing out of their rights, and that before one dollar should be within the power of the Quebec government to dispose of to the two litigants, the Pope and the propaganda should give up all their claims. I assert without fear of contradiction among people who will consider this matter in a calm and business like way, that the preamble, which is the only one relevant to the purposes of the act, is utterly harmless, entirely business-like, and free from the slightest suspicion of derogating from any right of her majesty or infringement of the rights of the constitution. Now, sir, it is said, and the house will remember with what gravity and force of eloquence it was urged on the house this afternoon, that this statute denies the supremacy of her majesty the Queen. I have read to you all the passages which refer in the slightest degree to any person outside of her Majesty’s Dominion. I have stated the facts with regard to the possession of this property, the negotiations which were had with regard to it, and I think I may leave it to the dispassionate judgment of any man in this country, be he Catholic or Protestant, whether the act in the slightest degree in its operations considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, denies in any way the authority or supremacy of Her Majesty, spiritual or temporal. Let me ask WHAT RIGHTS HER MAJESTY HAD in this property. As the spiritual, as the temporal sovereign, what right had she in this property? Absolutely none whatever, excepting that she stood as the trustee for the Province of Quebec. Her own personal rights were not affected. Her sovereign rights were not affected. There were no portions of Her Majesty's domain that were not contributory to Her Majesty’s revenue. If they were sold and turned into money tomorrow not one dollar will ever pass into Her Majesty’s treasury. Not one dollar will be disposed of by the advice of any of Her Majesty's ministers. Therefore, neither as the spiritual or temporal sovereign, did she have any interest in this property. As head of her church, as head of any religion of the British empire, what power has she? None whatever. It is a question purely of public concern, purely of the public domain of the province of Quebec. My hon. friend from Victoria thought it delegated from her authority, inasmuch as it placed a portion of the public money at the disposal of a foreigner. I submit that it does not. It places a sum of money for the extinguishment of a claim on the public property of Quebec, and then calls upon those who are litigants to abide by the decision of their own arbiter. When the $400,000 shall have been paid over from the province of Quebec her majesty has not the slightest right or control with regard to the distribution of it. In the ordinary course it would be paid to one of the claimants of the property, but as there happens to be two it is held subject to the order of the person who is to settle the dispute between them, but her majesty or her majesty’s government had not a right to dispose of a single dollar of that money. Surely their rights ended when they could say: "We have received the deeds of this property." To contend that there is any royal, provincial or legislative right to control the division of the money, would be saying that the crown, after the grant of public money had been passed under the great seal, would have the right to use and control it for all time to come. Now we are told, and I would be content if so much had not been said upon this subject as to mislead the judgment of hundreds of persons in this country, whose judgment ought not to be questioned as well worth having. I would be content to rest the case there, and to say this is a question in respect of which no right of her majesty, either as temporal power or spiritual power, is in the least degree involved. And when we are taken so far afield upon the question as to go back into the legislation of 300 years ago, when we are asked to apply to this question the supremacy act, which has not the slightest bearing upon the question, even if it existed, and should be enforced in the province of Quebec, I feel bound to follow that argument to some extent for the I purpose of showing HOW UNREASONABLE THE DEMAND IS that under the B. N. A. apt, and in this day of colonial rights and self-government, the federal authority in Canada is to indicate the sort of legislation one of its provinces, according to the legislation, the cohesive legislation, to say the least of it, which used to exist in the mother country 300 years ago. 1 have reminded the house what the privileges were, even as regards the act of supremacy conceded to the people of Quebec, by the terms of capitulation, and by the terms of the treaty, and by the terms of the Quebec act I have shown that absolute freedom of worship was extended by the treaty of Paris and by the Quebec act, and I have shown the house, I think, what is the meaning of the reservation as to the laws of England, in force as regards public worship in this country. In the year 1765 the law officers of the crown made this statement on their responsibility to the Lords of Trades and Plantations: The subjects of His Majesty residing in the countries in America, ceded to His Majesty by the treaty of Paris are not subjected in the colonies to the incapacities, deprivation of rights and penalties to which the Roman Catholic subjects in the kingdom are. LORD NORTH’S STATEMENT. Lord North, the first minister in that country, then said the same thing in debate, which I will read from an extract under my hand. He said: "It has been the opinion of many able lawyers that the best way to establish the happiness of the inhabitants is to give them their own laws as far as relates to their own possessions. Their possessions were marked out to them at the time of the treaty. To give them these possessions would not be very wise as to the free exercise of that religion. This, likewise, is no more than was confirmed to them by testy as far as the laws of Great Britain can confirm it. There is no doubt that the laws of England do confirm the exercise of full and free religion, differing from that of the Church of England in any of the colonies. Therefore, I apprehend that we ought to not extend them to Canada." Let us not in dealing with this question, the supremacy, be more restrictive on the people of our own country and in favor of the authority of the sovereign, whom we all revere, and whose powers and prerogatives we all wish to maintain to the utmost, than the sovereigns of Great Britain have been themselves. Now what has been their action with regard to the question of the supremacy? Let me read to you a passage from Lord Thurlow’s statement in the debates of 1774: "I state in the beginning that the proclamation referred to did not affect to relate to Canada, but I said that the recapitulation reserved all their effects, movable and immovable, but even if it were otherwise it is supposed that the tithes would accrue to the king, though they might not have but for them." Powers of the Pope. And yet these people in the province of Quebec who are said to be under the provisions of the supremacy act, so severe that they cannot recognize the sovereignty of a foreign bishop, were in 1774, by his majesty's attorney general, authorized to collect tithes from the people, although perhaps not by the authority of law. While 76 years ago, by a solemn act or statute, the Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec was recognized by the governor of the province under royal instructions, we are told that the act of supremacy was enforced, and yet that man was a bishop simply by the sovereignty of the first bishop of his church. He was a bishop simply because he had received from Rome the bull which, under the statute of Queen Elizabeth, it was high treason to bring into the country at all. That was the way in which the civil and religious rights of the people of this country were treated upwards of 75 years ago; but after the lapse of three-quarters of a century we are to be wiser, and we are to enforce against the great section of our people legislation in preserving the rights of the Crown, which the Crown deliberately chose to ignore 76 years ago. In 1817 the Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec received a mandamus calling him as such to the Legislative Council of the province. He, holding his office by the will and under the bull of his superior bishop, was called, by virtue of his office, to be one of the Governors of Quebec. In 1839 Governor Colborne issued letters patent incorporating the Catholic bishop of Quebec and all his successors. He might have been appointed by his superior, under the bulls which these gentlemen tell us apply to the province of Quebec today. It was high treason to act at all in 1838. A Roman Catholic college was incorporated by the province of Prince Edward Island, and the question was submitted to the law officers of the crown fifty odd years ago whether that was a violation of the supremacy of the crown, fifty times over, if anything, more than this act of Quebec is a violation of the rights of the crown, but the law officers advised that it was within the competency of the legislative powers, as they then existed, and it was no derogation of the act of supremacy if the act could be held to apply to that province. But since that period, since the period when the office of this country charged with the maintenance of the rights of the crown, who, as I said before, were infinitely more restrictive than we are asked to be today, three-quarters of a century later. In the meantime what a change has taken place in the politics of British North America. We have been placed on a different footing. WE HAVE RECEIVED FREE INSTITUTIONS. We have received legislative powers and by the voice of our sovereign, by the voice of our parliament, by the policy of her ministers as expressed in every act or statute, it has been designed that subject only to those matters which are of imperial concern, we shall be fully clothed with the right of self-governing free men in every part of Canada as our fellow subjects in the heart of England are, and yet we are told now that we are not only under the restrictive legislation of 300 years ago, but no legislature of Canada has the power to repeal any restrictive legislation, and that any restrictive legislation of that kind is beyond the competence of the provincial legislatures. POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES. We heard last night the singular statement that the provincial legislature is only a delegated authority. I deny that statement as explicitly as it is courteous to deny any statement made by an hon. member of this house. I go further, and say within the limits of its authority, and subject only to the powers of disallowance, the provincial legislature is as absolute as the imperial parliament itself. (Applause.) The imperial parliament is not restricted as to the subjects over which it can legislate, but in legislating on these subjects it has all the rights which it was possible, for the imperial parliament to confer. I say more, that the provincial legislature, legislating upon the subjects which are given to it by the British North America act, has the power to repeal an imperial statute in so far as it interferes with its control over those subjects. It has been urged upon the house these two days that we had no power, and the act 28 and 29 Vic., called the Colonial Enactments act prevented any statute having the force of law in any colony which has any provision in it repugnant to an imperial statute. Very good. After citing a number of appeals to the privy council, in which the powers of provincial legislatures were considered, and in which it was held that colonial legislatures were in no sense delegates of, or acting under mandate from the imperial parliament, he said: "In treating a question of this kind the provincial legislature is surely untrammelled in the exercise of its powers by imperial legislation of centuries ago. If the supremacy exists in relation to the provinces of British North America, if we have no freedom of religion, then I say the first duty of this house, of every legislature of the province of Canada, is to declare that we have not, in this ninenteenth century the rights of free men. In the year 1850 the bishops, the Roman Catholic bishops, in the province of Upper Canada were incorporated, and their successors from time to time have had economical rights. Their successors, our friend from Simcoe would tell us, had renounced their authority, but be should have added these words in connection with his argument, "in communion with the Church of Rome." In 1850 the legislature of Upper Canada incorporated all those people and gave them corporate powers, yet the hon. member for Simcoe says it is unconstitutional. In 1862 ALL THE BISHOPS OF NEW BRUNSWICK were incorporated. Look at the statutes of all the other provinces of Canada and you will find precisely the same thing. We heart last night that the people were not to be precluded by not having objected to the Jesuit incorporation act of 1887. We are told they are not precluded. They are objecting to it now. We were told that the people did not lose the right to object to the provisions of an English statute of 300 years ago, and which is in force in this country in regard to the papal and other religious bodies. They are not only a year behind the time, they are thirty-seven years behind the time, because the parliament of Canada incorporated a body of these wicked people for the purpose of teaching what the hon. member for North Simcoe says they have no right to teach to the people of Quebec. In 1852 St. Mary's college was incorporated by the Jesuits under an act passed by the legislature of Canada. Turning to that division list, which one of my hon. colleagues showed me last night, I find that 29 Protestants voted for it, 27 Catholics voted for it, and only 7 voted against it altogether out of the whole legislature. We had 37 years ago, sir, religious toleration which would have frowned down the arguments presented to this house this afternoon, if it had been clothed with ten times the force with which it was rendered to this house today. In 1868 another college was incorporated for the same purpose in the province of Quebec. I ask the members whether down to the present moment they ever heard of any remonstrance owing to the conferring of these charters, or whether from any section of the people in this country, high or low, one denomination or the other, there has been any reproach with regard to their conduct in this country during that 37 years, by virtue of their teachings, upon the youth of this country. (Hear, hear.) Let me call attention, again addressing myself to the argument, that it is not necessary for us in British North America to be MORE RESTRICTIVE as regards the rights and powers of the crown than the crown has been in England. Let me call the attention of the house to the fact that 80 years ago, in the heart of England, a magnificent institution of learning was placed under the control of this same order, where they have been educating hundreds of the English youth each year ever since. I refer to the institution at Stoney-hurst. Are we to say that the act of supremacy, the keen edge of which is not to be applied in Great Britain, for prohibitory legislation in regard to the Jesuit order must be applied to one section of the British North America act, and under our federal system by the arbitrary power of disallowance with which his excellency is empowered. I refer to the eloquent and forcible argument which you, sir, (Mr. Colby in the chair) addressed to the house last night, in which you pointed out that no section of the country would be willing to live under a government where that kind of legislation would be applied. In the exercise of the immense powers in the range of provincial legislation, there is no provincial legislation in Canada legislating on the subject of the civil and religious liberties of its people would consent to have its powers curtailed by the federal government, taking from the wall the rusty weapon which has hung there for 200 years. Why, sir, I will spare the patience of the house by not doing what I intended to do, quote legislation still in force with regard to all Her Majesty's dominions, but a dead letter for scores of years - legislation which, if it were put in force, would put one-third of the people in this city in prison tomorrow for offences of heresy, non-conformity and not taking the sacrament, some of these statutes being still actually unrepealed. (To be Continued.)