THE JESUITS ESTATES

Our correspondent " U. E. L." has completed his argument, and, in noticing now some points which were not covered by our proceeding articles, w^e cannot help repeating our conviction that the matter is really a simple one, and that a great deal of unnecessary ground has been travelled over. The mass of material heaped up has the effect of covering the really important points. 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. The opinions of lawyers also are of little use unless the statement of the qiiestion proposed is given, and even then they do not make law. The main questions are of fact.

To quote from the elaborate report of Mr. Dunkin, in the appendix to Mr. Buller's report : " In the capitulation an attempt was made to " introduce a guarantee for the continual maintenance of this (Jesuit) ^' order in the province and the perpetual possession by them of their ^* estates. This proposal of the Marquis de Vaudreuil was, however. "■ set aside, and no such guarantee given or implied, either in the *' capitulation or in the treaiy of 1763 bv which the country was ceded *' to Great Britain." In estimating these two documents we must bear in mind that the permanently efficient one is the definitive treaty of cession which was the joint act of the two high contending powers, whose servants Amherst and Vaudreuil were, and who had power to bind their respective subjects by their mutual agreement. We have printed the whole of the fourth article of the treaty which has any bearing on the case. It will, however, throw light upon the capitulation

to observe that the Amlicrst who signed it was the same Amherst who, in 1770, petitioned for a grant of these very estates as Ijeing vested in the King under the same document which '• V. E. L." says confirmed them to the Jesuits. The Crown lawyers in England and Canada, to whom the matter was referred, reported the Crown right to be indubitable, but difficulties of describing technically the property intervened, and during the delays of enquiry Amherst died, and the orders to ))repare the deeds were cancelled. In our last article we gave the opinion of Dr. Marriott, to whom the attorney-and-solicitor generals referred this special subject. The British Government was advised by the most eminent lawyers thoughout, and their opinions might be cited at length to the utter weariness of our readers.

The extensive reading of " U. E. L." has not been well digested. The fundamental error into which he has Hillen is this, to quote his own words — " the King of England succeeded the King of France in *' the sovereignty of these provinces, he succeeded him not only in all " his prerogatives but in all his obligations — he accepted the sovereignty " of Canada, with all its limitations and modifications, such as it was." This principle of law is, in effect, that by the conquest of a country the civil, criminal and ecclesiastical laws of the conquered country are im])osed upon the conquerors. The victor '' aiCcMs" the sovereignty» and the defeated king imposes his laws. If this were the case a king ought to enquire into the laws of a country before conquering it. Either he or his subject might get into serious difficulties by victory. For instance, by the laws of Canada at th».* conquest (vol. 2 Edits , p. 72) Protestants could not assemble for the exercise of their religion, and it was etjually illegal for thein to winter in Canada. Amherst did not think to stipulate for the liberty of the I'rotestaiu religion. It was, therefore, his duty upon concjuering this country to dismiss his chaplains and send his troops to Mass. When the snow fell he was bound by the " Law of Nations " to turn Catholic or evacuate the country. C)iher inconveniences might arise. For instance, in Ficton's case one of the counsel observed — '* by the laws resjiecting religion in the very country " (S[)ain) from which this island (Trinidad 1 has been conquered, a " heretic may be burned ; and, by the laws of the same country, any " person converting a Roman Catholic to the Protestant religion might " be burned likewise. If, therefore, the chaplain of any one of his " Majesty regiments had converted this poor girl to the Protestant " faith, Cieneral Picton had a right, — nny itwou/J have bfen his duty. — " to have burned this reverend person, upon the ])rinciple for which " his counsel must contend today." The Chief Justice, Lord Ellenborough, said : " The laws that are repugnant to the rights of the ci>ni]uer-

*' ing State cease of course." The principle which this and the other leading cases affirm is, that laws contrary to the fundamental principles of the British Constitution cease at the moment of conquest. Now a fundamental principle of the British Constitution is the King's supremacy as laid down in the ist Eliz. Chap. I — which, in its terms, extends to' all dominions which may at any time be annexed to the Crown of England. That extended to Canada at the instant of conquest. The King had no power to modify it. That could be done only by the King in Parliament. The penal laws were local laws. No serious person ever pretended that they followed the British arms ; but at that time dissenters in England were under serious disabilities and the Quebec Act gave civil rights to Roman Catholics in Canada long before they obtained them in England. Therefore we said that the charter of civil and religious freedom in Canada is an Act of Parliament and not a treaty.

The opinions and authorities which " U. E. L." has been reading deal also with a more difficult question, viz. : Whether the common law of England was introduced by conquest. Fortunately, here also, we can tread on the firm ground of an authoritative decision. The question came up in the celebrated case of " Campbell vs. Hall," which arose in Granada, an island ceded to the EngUsh Crown under this very treaty of 1763. It was decided by the Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield. He said : " It is not to be wondered at that an adjudged *' case in point is not to be found. No dispute ever was started before *' upon the King's legislative right over a conquest. It never was *' denied in Westminster Hall ; it never was questioned in Parliament." He then quotes Calvin's case : " I say. Lord Coke in that case lays it "" down as clear that if a king come to a kingdom by conquest he may '' at his pleasure altei and change the laws of that kingdom ; but until *' he doth make an alteration the ancient laws of that kingdom remain." Again, in Ruding vs. Smith, Lord Stowell said : " I am yet to seek for *' any principle of general law which bows the conquerors of a country <' to the legal institutions of the conquered." •' U. E. L." has not apprehended the principle underlying his authorities and has so selected and arranged his citations as to prove an absurdity. It strikes us also as remarkable, that, if the title of the present Jesuits to the estates of the old order is so clear, it has not been discovered elsewhere. Perhaps, if the extracts of " U. E. L." were forwarded to thie Catholic nations of the world, some one of them might repent and set an example to the others.

The laws for law-abiding people are the decisions of the highest courts. We proceed then to say that the proclamation of the King,

-dated Oct. 7th, 1763, until further action was taken, introduced into •Canada the EngHsh laws ; and under it English courts were established. We cited in a previous article the Royal commissions and instructions to the governors, and we would now ciie the Commission to Chief Justice Hey, September 25, 1766, in which he was ordered to decide causes criminal or civil, ''according to the laws and customs of that ^' part of our Kingdom of Great Britain called England and regulations " of our province of Quebec hereafter to be made." These laws were found during the ten years they were administered, to be very unsuit. able to the country, and the French-Canadians petitioned the Crown for the " restoration of their ancient laws, privileges and customs, as " well as for all the rights and privileges of other subjects of the King." This is the occasion upon which Thurlow made the report which " U. E. ].." cites with so much approval. The case of the Jesuits' estates was just one of these "exceptions and qualifications " he speaks of, as appears by the excepting of them in the 8th clause of the Act for which he, as attorney-general, was mainly responsible, and which he carried through the house. He and Mr. Wedderburne drew up reports upon which the Quebec bill was drafted. The latter was solicitorgeneral and afterwards lord chancellor, as Lord Loughborough. His report is in the same volume of Christie, p. 37. It touches on the very ])oint of discussion as follows : — " The establishment of the first (the " Jesuits) is not only incompatible with the constitution of an English " province, but with every other possible form of civil society. By the " rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every government." " They " are not owners of their estates but trustees for juirposes dependent •''upon the pleasure of a foreigner, the general of their order. Three " great Catholic slates have upon grounds of policy, expelled them. It ^' would be singular if the first Protestant state in Europe should '* protect an establishment that ere now must have ct^ased in Canada '' had the French Government continued." " It is, therefore, equall)' *' just and expedient, in this instance, to assert the sovereignly of the " King and to declare 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." Guided by these reports, and by the petitions of the French (Canadians, and their evidence before the house. Parliament passed the Quebec .\ct in 1774 which continued the criminal law of England, restored the civil Jaw of France, gave to the Roman Church an establishment by law, modified the oaths of the I. Eliz., cap. I, which bore upon the <:onsciences of Catholics ; but excepted th: lands of the religious orders. These consequently still remained under the legislative authority of the

Crown. This unparalleled act of generosity alienated from the King nearly all his English-speaking subjects in the colonies. To the present day it stands recorded in the Declaration of Independence^ as one of the justifications for revolt, that the King has abolished " the free system of English laws in a neighboring province." On the side of the French Canadians, abandoned by France — their leaders having emigrated—stood the King, and his officers, Murray and Carleton, protecting a discouraged people, alien in race, language, and religion, from the aggressions of their own nation flushed with success; and now, for the first time, from a French Canadian statesman, have we heard the word " spoliation " applied to their acts. This great statute was largely the work of the man whose •' broad views and sound principles," whose " erudition and manliness raised him to a peerage," and to the honor of approving quotation by " U. E. L."

But, alas for the Act — it is not sound on the Jesuits' estates, and " U. E. L." says it is ultra vires. That is simply legal heresy. Bulls and briefs may not count for much with sume, for whenever they do not approve of them they call them " private opinions " of Popes ; but when the King in his Parliament passes an Act, all his loyal subjects obey. We cannot waste time to prove a proposition which is the foundation of social order.

It is made a reproach that we have slurred over the position of the Jesuits at the time of the cession. Let us not do so any longer. We thought we might have spared our readers this ; and, first, we would remark that the grant which " U. E. L." cites as their title does not purport to create a corporation. It is to the " Jesuits residing in Canada, "who are not separated and erected into a body corporate thereby, nor did they ever hold these lands separately from the Society of Jesus or have succession within themselves. It was proved by the constitutions of the society, which it was compelled to produce by the Parliament of Paris in the great trial of Father Lavalette, that the property of the Society was held in solidarity, and so the General of the Society was made to pay the debts of the Martinique house. We shall not, however, dwell upon this trial. The facts will be found in Ency. Brit., vol. 13, Art. ''Jesuits'' by any curious reader. We wish specially to invite attention to the legal status of the Society as given in Isambert — Recueil général des anciennes lois Françaises^ vol. 22. At p. 312, Aug. 6, 1761, is an " Arrêt du Parlement " which orders that ]jending a trial " de l'abus," then going on, all subjects of the King of whatever condition, are forbidden to enter the said society in any of its grades. All Jesuits are also forbidden to receive foreign members, i^to their houses. Then, at p. 320, follows an " Ordonnance " of the

King suspending for a year the execution of the *' Arrêt." One year later, Aug. 6, 1762. p. 328, is another ** Arrêt," which recites the previous one with much other matter, pronounces '* lé dit institut inad- " missible par sa nature dans tout état i)o]icé comme contraire au " droit naturel, attentatoire à toute autorité spirituelle et temporelle et " tendant à introduire dans l'église et dans les états, sous le voile spé- " cieux d'un institut religieux, non un ordre qui aspire véritablement *' et uniquement à la perfection évangéliquc, mais plutôt un corps " politique, dont l'essence consiste dans une activité continuelle pour *• parvenir par toutes sortes de voies di'-ectes ou indirectes, sourdes " ou publiques, d'abord à une indépendance absolue, et successive- ** ment à l'usurpation de toute autorité " * * " un corps immense — qui *' ne pensant et n'agissant que jjar l'impulsion d'un seul homme * * "concentrée dans le gouvernement du seul général." The "Arrêt" after much similar matter, continues : '* Ordonne ; que toutes les dépo- " sitions provisoires contenues en l'arrêt, rendu par notre dite cour " seront et demeureront définitives et seront exécutées dans toutes *' leurs ])arties, etc." T hc Arrêt ihen goes on to command all Jesuits to quit their colleges, and abandon their habit, and forbids them to obey or corresj^ond with their General, or to unite in society. And immediately thereupon full execution was taken out. In a Royal declaration, at p. 401, Letters Patent dated February 2, 1765, are cited, showing that the estates were then in the hands of royal officers. On Frebruary 10, 1763, the definitive treaty of cession was made, and at that date there were no French Jesuits by the laws of France. Strange teachers were in most of their colleges, and the Jesuits were beseeching in vain the intervention of the King. That came at last in the Edict at p. 424, November, 1764, which ordered '* toutes procédures criminelles" lo cease, but ordained, " voulons et nous plaît (ju'a " l'avenir la Société n'ait plus lieu dans notre royaume, pays, terres, " etc., de notre obéissance." 'i'he .Arrêt of .\ugust, 1762, had its full eflîcacy. We answer " U. K L," therefore, that at the date of the treaty of cession the Jesuits had no legal status by French law— that their i)roperty was under seizure by the Government of Franc, and we answer that any "'spoliation'' in this matter was the act of His Most Christian Majesty the King of France.

We turn now to the IJrief, Dominas ac Rcdcmpior noster. " V. V. L. " touches warily upon it. It is dangerous ground, but he quotes Archbishop de Beaumont to the clTcct that it is nothing but a ** personal and " private judgment of ('lenient XI\'""

It is matter of history that the Jesuits openly denied and resisted the authority of the Brief, but, being suppressed by the civil laws of every

Catholic state, retired to Russia, where they found protection. From thence they were banished in i8 15 by a ukase which complained of them in strong terms. We would remark here, that on the very lowest ground the decisions of supreme judges make law, and that in the Roman Church the Pontiff is supreme judge. Moreover that Briefs of the same nature — " personal and private judgments " of other Popes had erected the Society. The Bull Sollicitudo — a " personal and private judgment " of Pius VII. - restored the Society on July 14, 1815, and is quoted with approval by " U. E. L.," bu't he must also accept the sentence in it in which the Pope calls the Jesuits' " secular priests resident " for many years in the vast empire of Russia, a.nd once members of the *' Society of Jesus, suppressed by Clement XIV, of happy memory who *' had implored his permission to unite in a body." This Bull is a very short one and while the Pope reconstitutes the Society and abrogates the Brief of Clement XIV, •' so far as is contrary to the present order " he does not contradict the strong charges of his predecessor. Our pretension all along has been tliat after the promulgation of the Brief, the Society was dissolved, and its members became " secular priests," and our view of the status of the Society is in harmony with that of the Popes. Nowhere in the Sollicitudo is a hint that the property of the former order is to be claimed, nor is the disposition of it made by Clement XIV referred to or modified. With regard to the manner in which the Crown took final possession of the property here, we observe that " U. E. L's " citation from the .writ of seizure is incomplete. That was dated March 8, 1800, and, after stating the King's ri^'ht by conquest in 1760 as quoted, goes on thus : " And whereas, of our especial " favor, we have been graciously pleased to suffer the late surviving *' members of the late said order of Jesuits, who were living and resi- " dent in Canada at the period of the aforesaid conquest and cession *' thereof, to occupy certain parts of the said estates, etc., and to " receive and enjoy the rents and profits during the term- of their ^' natural lives ; And whereas, all and every the late surviving members ^' of the said late order of Jesuits, are now deceased, and whereas, ^' since the decease of the said late surviving members of the said late '' order of Jesuits, we have been graciously pleased to permit the Rev. "■ Jean Joseph Cazot, priest, to occupy divers parts, etc." Then follows the seizure. In following the histories we fell into an error — unimportant, however, as Cazot died the same year. He was not a Jesuit. He was procurator, but the last Jesuit was Father de Glapion. The title which was given by the King to the old Province of Lower Canada was not only by conquest but by escheat. We have seen that the original grant cited by " U. E. L." was by the King of France to the

Jesuits in Canada. They enjoyed it until they all died. That they could not add to their number under French law after August 6, 1761, was not primarily the fault of the English Government. The disability existed before the ce^ision. That the English Government likewise prohibited it, is true, and that the Pope did the same, is also true. To assert, therefore, continuity of the former and present order is to underrate the intelligence of the public. The j^roperty was unprotected by the Quebec Act and open to the full force of ihe king's prerogative ecclesiastical as well as civil, whether as vacant from defect of heirs, or vacant from dissolution of corporators by death, or a vacant trust returned to the donor, it would equally have fallen to the King. There was no one else to take it under English or French law. Under the Canon law of Rome it would have fallen to the bishop.

Since this discussion commenced the resolutions and papers have been brought down and debated, and we are glad to observe that any legal title existing in the i)resent Society is distinctly denied. The definite settlement of amass of proi)erty is to be disturbed on the plea of a moral claim. We are informed by '• V. E. L." that every transaction relating to it is, and has been, void a/> initio. We would point out that the civil and religious right of the minority rtst on no firmer basis, and if the conscience of the majority can overturn, by the retrocession of Laprairie Common, transactions based upon so many public acts, there can be no finality in ai^vthing. '1 he i)0\ver of the purs»* is with the Legislative and they could have made what grant they chose without taking this method of asj»ersing the memory of a fairminded tolerant body of men who settled the destinies of this country so that party divisions never coincided with religious creeds. This revolutionary method of reopening dead issues and declaring fundamental laws to be /////(/ 7'ires is one well calculated in coming years to be a " bitter pill " for more people than Protestants.

N. B. — What follows was politely refused insertion on the ]>lca that the Gazette was entitled to the last word, that the controversy had reallv closed and that no good pur|)0se could l)e served by reopening it. In its leader of fune 27th it had however declared: '* There is nothing we desire more than the candid discussion of every point of this important question." Hut in the last leader of July 7th new issues were raised, a change of front attempted, plain arguments distorted, and universally acknowledged historical facts denied. We therefore publish the rejected letter, and in a postscript 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 ihe

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 to 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.

" // ivas 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.''

It is refreshing to be able to put on record this one concession of my amiable friend, writing in the 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, Ji-ine 28.) I quote 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 individuals the enjoyment of their property, and of all privileges not inconsistent with the security of the conquest." It was, I said, in the application 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 justify his pleading in favour of 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 Government, 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.

We might pause, and ask ourselves what â fundamental law of a State is ? I take it to l)e 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 lime 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, which I should have quoted /// extenso, to show the palpable absurdity of it, had I not thought your space too precious for such vagaries, long since dispelled from ihe 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 Recollets, 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.)

" J>y the rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every iiovernmeni." (They are the most steadlasi suj)porlers of ever\ (iovernmeni, and of the form of Government of every country »n which they reside : monarchists in En;:land aiul Can ida. and rejjublicans in the United States. Their rule is no other than the rule of St. Paul, looking upon every constituted authority as of Gotl, and obeying, in all things lemjjorai, their rulers for conscience's sake.)

" C)ther monastic orders may be tolerated, because, though they are not useful subjects, still they are subjects, and make a part of the community ill emi>loyed. (!) The Jesuii.s foim no part of the conmiuniiy (Arrant nonsense).

" 'IMiev according to their institution neither allow il!. •'iun-.- Mi>r obedience to the prince, but to a foreign power.

This was not the wa\ of thinking i^^i those who closely watched the working of their institution. Take for instance Sir Richanl Temple, a Protestant, and Vice Roy of India. In 1877 he addre>sed the pupils of the Jesuits' College, St. Francis Xavier's of Calcutta, in the following terms :

" Wherever I go, whether to capital eilies, amid>t the turmoil and bustle and activity of civilized life, or to the remote interior of the counlrv, perhaps amidst scenes of famine, or sickness, or desolation,

there I find ministers of the CathoHc religion, who by their self-abnegation, 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 throughout 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 thev are working in the midst of us the British people ; they are bringing yoiL 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 yourselves 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 in 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 Catholic 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."

In my correspondence with the Star I have clearly proven the utter groundlessness of this assertion. (See 6*^^^ May 26, June 9 and 16; Pamphlet pages 9, 10, 38, 48-50.) I do not intend here to go over the same ground, as truth is within the reach of every honest inquirer. But as this objection has been brought up again by your contributor under another form, 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 .SV^/- 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'après les faits et les moyens détaillés dans le mémoire, que la maison de la Martinique est seule obligée ; que non-

seulement il n'y a point lieu à la solidarité, <[\u ne peut naiire que d'une loi ou d'une convention expresse, mais qu'il n'y a aucune sorte d'aclion contre les maisons de France ou autres maisons de l'Ordre, et que les Jésuites ne doivent pas s'attacher a l'incompétence, leur défense au fond ne souffrant j^oint de difficulté.

•' Délibéré à Paris, le 6 mars 1761. Siçné : 1/Herminier, (iillet. Maillard, Jabouré, de la Monnoie, iiabile, Thcvenot, d'Kpaule."

But there were other secret, and more powerful influences at work. Had the Jesuits clung to their right o{ com mittimus they were protecied by the King ; but trusting to the justice of their cause, and not rightly gauging the power and malignity of the Jansenist j^arty 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, u|)on grounds of policy, expelled them. It would be singular, if the first Protestant State in Kurope should 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 Stales had nothing catholic but the name ; and having got rid of the Jesuits, their aim was to attack directly the Holy See. 'I'he 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 Jésus ; mais, en attendant, sa Compagnie est dans de mauvai> dra|)s." ((Kuvres de Voltaire T. 48. l.ettrc 4 mai 17O2.)

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 rycloj>:c proportions, and our controversy would not be a whit nearer the end Setting aside therefore what has been written to their praise by Von Schlegel, Hallam, Bacon, Leibnitz, (irolius, Hessius, Gretser, Keller, Bafl".m, Haller, Muratori, JJancroft, Peramus, Chateaubriand, Came, Pradié, Dallas and a host 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 clearsi terms the cause of their lack of i)opularity 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 Goitingen, to Doctor T/schirner, in answer to certain strictures published by the latter agamsl 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 alhci>ts an i revolutionary philosophers. But every right minded man shculd admixe thai

which is the object of the hatred of such characters ; for we may be assured that then, either rehgion, or justice, or subordination is at stake. The re-estabHshment 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 doctrines 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 authority." 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 Catholics 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 sovereignty of the people and all its mournful consequences, as is done in the present dav in our Protestant universities ? Hostility to kingly authority has been imputed to them, but of this charge they have been wh-lly acquitted by Henry IV., King of France, and at a later period under 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 English writer, Dallas, declares that everywhere on the continent the colleges of the Jesuits are replaced 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 élite of the French noblesse were educated by the Jesuits, m 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 Robespierre, 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 Cathohc princes should recall men whose services ai-e 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 Wedderburne 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

remained very quiet (this was thirteen years after Quebec capitulated and eight months before the l)rief of suppression uas 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, and 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 ThurloN\, 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 overlook 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 fast 0/ the order y 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 pamphlet 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 Laflèchc of Three Rivers" ; in whi« h 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. .\ll 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

who have read this libel one may possibly read the correction. The harm is done.

As for Harriot, 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-language, 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 religious orders and their constitutions. Yet a foreigner, a layman and a Huguenot, Marriot does not hesitate to sit in judgment on the constitution 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 members, 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, confirming the constitutions of the Jesuits, as a man who does not understand

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 incapacitated from personally holding any property. He arrogantly assumes to himself the office of leaching canon law to the nineteen popes who had up to that time solemnly approved all the absurdities, which existed in his fertile imaginât on only. Page after page of talk even more silly leads him finally to his goal, and he pomj>ously 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 m the laws of every country an obstacle to its establishment."

And we might add that it is not astonishing, that Sir Fletcher Norton and William de Grey, in the teeth of Marriot's all but isolated opinion, that the conqueror may do v»»ry much as he pleases with the individual rights of the conquered, returned a //<i^rt//rr answer (June lo, 1 765 1 to the (juestion ])ut 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 colonies to the same civil disabilities and penalties, to which Roman Catholics in the realm are subject by law ?" For Marriot was not tht man to give an impartial and reliable decision.

As for Mr. Dunkin's statement I take it to be worth ii> i.u\ \\u\:c. Be it so that Vaudreuil strove to insert some other clause in the capitulation, I have no data to authorize me to gainsay his assertion. But my reasoning is based, not on what might or might not have lK*en added to 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 >urmise what his intention was from the context and ac cording to the received canons for the interpretation of treaties.

" 7/ie title li'hiih was ^iven by the Kin^ to the oUl I^i ox .n r / " Canada was fwt only by cont/uest but ly escheat.''

I should like very much to be informed from what document this information is gleaned. Lord Godorich in announcing the cession of the Jesuits estates to the old i)rovince, on July jih., iS^^i. makes no

■mention of the title. Neither does Baton 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 assumption that Casot's status was not identical with that of " the la'e 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 referred 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 what might be legally granted ; — that the Attorney and Solicitor General, 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 already 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 Williams and Gray, in the colony, as their want of legal knowledge or notorious 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 surviving. So there was no question of escheat — and had these minor diffi-

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-ofricerr> 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 Majesty. The question I affirmed was not a sim))lc 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 denunciation of Chandler's du[)licity, and the incompetency or dishonesty, just as you prefer, of Williams and Gray on the part of Messrs. Panet and Taschereau(*) not less than to deGlapion's firm but res|>ectful protest,("j") 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 .\mherst, the nephew of Jeffrey, could not be carried out " owing lo difficulties arising from local circumstances." Thereupon the Act. 43 Ceo. HI c. 159 was passed granting an annuity to Amherst's heirs.

The other statement of your contributor is for similar reasons misleading, when he says : '* difficulties of describing technically the property 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.

" Tnfol!ou>hi}^tlic histories we fell into an error — unimportant, h(nvever, as Cazot died the same year (\%'^q). He was not a J'-uit //> was procurAtor, but the last Jesuit ivas Father de G/a t ton.

This was one of Roubaud's cock and bull stories (See report on Can. Archives, 1885, p. cxli). To what extent that gentleman's veracity may be relied on. those who are ever so little conversant with the history of the time can tell. The writer a.ssu res us thai he "fell into nn error — unim|)()rtant however." He alludes no doubt to his former assertion in the (/\;sf//c 27 June. ** In our i>sue of Monday last the names of the Jesuits of the old ordc- who remained m Canada are given. 77/*- last of them Father Casot, died in 1800." (^Scc p. 17.) This is more or less the correct statement

Not wholly correct, for, unlike your better informed contributor of Monday, June 25, he would imply that the full list of names was given .

(•) Soo Koport oil K.liirrttion. ISJi, p \\1 (Krcu-h rr ruion). (t) Sci' .Vnpnitlix .V to this painphlot.

correct, however, inasmuch as he tells us that Father Casot (and not Cazot) was the last of the order.

We have already seen how inaccurate your contributor is with regard to important points of history. This is but another instance. We would not dwell upon it, but that your contributor gives himself out as a doctor in Israel, and the more he contributes, the deeper he sinks into the " quagmire."— Charity requires that some one should extend to him a helping hand. Therefore I shall endeavor to defend his better self of June 27 against himself of July the 7th.

In the first place Jean Joseph Casot was a Jesuit. Born on Oct. 4, 1728, he entered the Society of Jesus on Dec. 10, 1753 and took his first vows, which made him a Jesuit, two years later. His name is on the catalogues of the French province from the date of his entrance. One of these catalogues, that of 1756, is in my possession, and he was then at the Collegium Parisieiise, that of Louis-le-Grand. He arrived in Canada in 1757, three years before the capitulation of Montreal and all Canada. He was ordained priest on Dec. 20, 1766; but as your contributor plumes himself on his knowledge of canon law, he would blush to be told that a religious does not become more a rehgious by receiving holy orders. It is the vows of religion, and not the sacerdotal character, which distinguishes a regular from a secular priest. He was therefore a Jesuit and a resident in the colony before the conquest. He took his last vows at the College of Quebec on July 31, 1772, before his Superior Augustin Louis de Glapion, a year prior to the brief of suppression, and by order of the general, Lawrence Ricci. Fathers Peter Dujaunay and Charles Germain were witnesses to the act.

In the second place, even on the supposition that Father Casot was not a Jesuit, two other Jesuits survived Father de Glapion, who died at Quebec on Feb. 24 1790, I mean Fathers Bernard Well and Stephen de Villeneuve Girault The former died in Montreal, the exact date I have not been able to ascertain, but sometime between March 13th and April 5th 1791. The latter died at Quebec on Oct. 8th. 1794. I have documentary proofs of these facts.

In the third place, the very fact of his being procurator, far from being incompatible with his religious character, is an additional proof that he belonged to the order.

At the date of the taking of Quebec there were, excluding the New

Orleans mission and the Illinois, 37 Jesuits in the colony. In 1774,

he year the brief of suppression reached Quebec, there were 12 left.

Your contributor seems anxious to have me enter upon a discussion of the bull Dominus ac Redemptor. He even seems rather disappointed that I have not risen in arms against it, not uttered one single syllable

derogatory to the profound veneration and filial love every true Catholic should evince for the Supreme Pontiff. If, Mr. Editor, your patience be not already exhausted, I promise in my next communication to make it perfectly clear for all that the Society of Jesus was never cononically suppressed in Canada, no more than it was in Russia — and this without doing violence to the brief of suppression and without a whisper of reproach for the author of that brief.

I protest meanwhile against the baseless calumny that ilic Jesuits •openly denied and resisted the authority of the brief

Yours, etc.,

Montreal, ir July, 1888.

The " TORONTO MAIL", The " HUNTINGDON" GLEANER, etc., etc.,