TEXT OF THE ARTICLE AND REPLY

(The Mail, Toronto, Monday^ July 2, 1888.)

An Extraordinary Principle.

(i). /;/ Great Britain there are three recognized estates of the realm, the Ki?ig, the Lords, and the Commons; but in the Province of Quebec, judging by the procedure with reference to the Jesuits, there are four estates — the Pope, the Queen or her representative, the Council, and the Assembly.

Reply : —The transaction alluded to in no wise implies that the Pope is a fourth Estate to the realm. Nor is it repugnant to the British Constitution to allow the claimants, who are British subjects to voluntarily choose any arbitrator, though it were the Great Mogul, to decide on their respective individual claims, when Parliament admits the justice of those claims /;/ globo, by voting, in the ordinary course of legislation, a sum accepted by all claimants in the aggregate.

(2). Mil at are tervicd the Jesuits Estates are public property.

Reply : — What are termed Jesuits' Estates are public property in the same sense as any public money wrongfully acquired by the Crown, against whom the subject may proceed either by petition of right, by monstrans de droit or by traverse of office. And the prayer is grantable ex debito Justitice ; and Magna Charta says : nul/i lendemus, nulli 7iegabimus^aut differemus justitiam vel rectum. {Chitty., Prerog. C. 13. Sect. I ; See also Manning 2, 578. Vin. Ab. .Statutes. E.)

The petition (as in the caseuf the Quebec Bill) may be to tin- Kine in Parliament. {Cliitty. Ibid.)

(3). Tliis property belongs to the people of Quebec, irrespective of creed.

Reply : — If so be the case, $400,000 of this property has been voted away by the people of Quebec irrespective of creed for certain determined objects. In which case the Toronto JAi// would do well to busy itself about its own concerns.

But such is not the case. It does not de jure belong to the people of Quebec irrespective of creed, no more than the funds of the Bible Society would belong to the Catholics of the Province of Ontario to morrow, if a Catholic Government should by force of arms wrest the Dominion from Great Britain. A comparatively small jxirtion was given by the King of France, the remainder was given or bequcaleti by private individuals, or purchased by the order itself, exclusively for the instruction of the natives in the Catholic religion. It was, after ils seizure, transferred by the Imi)crial Government to the Province of Quebec without any obligation or condition annexed, but sinply with a wish expressed that it should be exjïended on Education, and that the institutions which had hitherto received aid from the fund should continue to receive assistance :

"The onlv practical question which remains for consideration is. whether the appropriation of these funds for the purpose of education should be directed by His Majesty or by the Provincial U-gisLiiure ?

''The King cheerfully and loithoiit reserve^ confides that duty to the Legislature, in the full persusaion that they will make such a selection amongst the different plans for this purpose which may be presented to their notice, as may most effectually advance the interests of religion and sound learning amongst his subjects ; and I cannot doubt that the Assembly will see the justice of continuing to maintain under the new distribution of these funds those scholastic establishments to which they are now appHed." {See Lord Goderich's despatch^ dated Dow7iing St. 'jtli July 1831, aiid communicated to the House of Assembly, \%th Nov. 1 83 1.)

De facto, non-Catholic institutions, and even Protestant churches had been all along, in spite of every semblance of justice, the sole recipients of the revenues accruing from these funds. But evidently the home government had been systematically misinformed as to the true intentions of the donors of the Jesuits' Estates, for otherwise its sense of justice and its knowledge of English law, which holds sacred the wills of donors long since deceased, would have put a term to the long standing abuse. [For misapplication of these funds see Jesuits' Estates, Answer to the Star, U. E. L. pp. 14, 15 ,• For the intentions of the donors see same, pp. 10, 11, 12 ; also. Report of Committee of the Assei7ibly of Lozver Canada on Education, submitted the 2^th Feb. 1824, and ordered to be printed the 27id of same month. French version, pp. 105 and following. For the English version see Appendix V. vol. XXXIII journal of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada.)

(4). Early in the year, the Government of the province wished to sell a certaifi portion of this property, the Jesuit barracks; but instead of proceedinrj with the sale it asked the Pope for pertnission to do so. His Holiness magnanimously granted the request., but affixed an important condition to the transaction. It was this : that the proceeds, which, of course, would be as much the money of the public as any other part of the provincial revenue should be placed at his disposal. To this the Government suggested as an alternative that the proper authorities should be allowed to apply the money, but that their proposal should be subject to the approval of the Holy See, and this tnodijication of the terms was agreed to.

Reply : — The mode of proceeding of the Hon. Mr. Mercier was in this instance most wise. He aimed at à definite settlement, and one binding on all parties, so that the government could at no future period be molested with fresh claims, set up by those who might deem themselves aggrieved at the. division the Legislature might make of the sum. These interested parties all admitted the arbitration

of the Holy See, and consented to receive any decision coming from that source as final. The Rev. Father Turgcon was accepted by the Holy See as its procurator. He at the same time represented the Society of Jesus, to which these estates were originally given, or by ils members purchased. In his two fold capacity he could sign an acceptance which would protect the government from further molestation.

The Protestant minority of the Province could reasonably object to this proceeding neither from a point of justice, as they received a f>ro rata sum, exceeding however their numerical importance, nor {xQ)Vi\ 2i point of sent imctit, as Prussia, the great Protestant power on the European continent had recourse to the Pope's direct arbitration.

(5). The HiNTiXGDON Glkaner, an English Liberal paper, says : " All this sounds as a talr told in a dream. That the Premier of a British Province should ^0 to Rome and offer to surrender a portion of the Crown do m am to the J 'ope, and to divide the proceeds not accordinj^ to the will of the Legislature hut 'f the Holy See, is one of the most extraordinary transactions recorded in modern history. " A similar principle 7L>as recognized some years ago in a measure before the Quebec Legislature adjusting certain disputed f^arish boundaries in Montreal^ wherein it îcas provided that, notwitli standing the adoption of the bill by the Legislature, the decision of Rome respecting the parishes in question, whatever it might be, should prevail. This clause wal subsequently struck out, ho7C'ever, whereas Mu. Mehl ifr has fully committed the province to recognition of the author i y of Rome in regard to the disposal of the mo*>ey realised from tbe sale oj the fesuit barracks.

Mr. Owens, an English speaking member, protested against this in a vigorous speech; and the (i leaner doubtless voi'-es English opinion when it says that " there is no use </ talking about independence from foreign yo/^e and of our being a ."elf governing people //;*•//. j/ M R. Mercier has done be confirmed.'' But Mu. Mercier is well aware that he has nothing to fear from Lingltsh complaints of l^apal interference in Quebec politics. In a province where the majority of the people firmly believe that the Church has a divine right to impose her ivill upon the civil power, his offence is no offence at «1//, but rather a meritorious action. Lie will have some difficulty, hown'er, in squaring his recognition of the Roman authority 'with the old fashioned Liberal maxim that the representatives of the people alone are eniiUed to pass upon the disposition of public money.

Reply:— From what has already been said, it is evident that the Huntingdon Gleaner was simj^ly appealing to religious prejudice, it

by no means considered the true interest of the Province. It assumes with a charming self-sufificiency that the Legislature does not know its own mind. The will of the Legislature, expressed by its unanimous vote, M. Owen's included, was that the Holy See should save it from further embarrassment and decide, as it alone could, what parties had any canonical right to a share in the $400 000 ; just as it left the Protestant Board of Education at liberty to distribute the ^60,000 as it might deem advisable.

The Huntingdon dreamer might as logically have concluded before the settlement of the affair of the Caroline Islands : " There is no use of talking about independence from a foreign yoke, and of the Prussians being a self-governing people if what Bismarck purposes is carried into effect."

Finally, to put the whole thing in a nut shell, adoptiug the MaiPs own phraseology : " The old-fashioned Liberal maxim, that the representatives of the people alone are entitled to pass upon the disposition of public money " has been acted upon at Quebec, and maintained at Ottawa. It would have been otherwise, had the yihw. et hoc genus onuie been consulted, as it is not pretended that they represent anybody or anything within the circumscription of the Province of Quebec.

Summary.

The Mail of Thursday ^ July 5, l'èZZ^ objects (i) to the ''spoliation theory"

Reply : — We consequently refer its editior to pages 8, 9 and 10 of this pamphlet, where we trust he will find a satisfactory solution to his little difficulty. People who are so fastidious when things are called by their true names should show a little consideration for the feelings of others, who are very likely more loyal at heart than themselves, and who have rendered certainly more efficient service to their secular masters, on more than one occasion, within the limited scope of our own history.

(2). The ^i ail denies the title 0/ the Jesuits to the Estates, as the order ceased to exist, having been suppressed by Papal Brief of 1^73.

Reply : — If the Mail, by a stretch of our imaginative powers, could be consistent for once, it would protest against the Pope's depriving by

Prief of suppression (1773) a then existing British Corporation (see pp. 28, 30, 44, 45) and British citizens (see Capitul. of Montreal, art. 46. p. 37) of the right of possessing property within British territory.

The Brief needed promulgation. It was never promulgated in Russia nor in Canada. Its enactments were never carried out either canonically or civilly, and as a consequence, the Jesuits were never canonically suppressed in Canada.

(3). The Mail cites French laivs Suppressing the (hufer^ and the English statitti.' ^1829, directed against the same.

Rei'Lv : — The French laws against the Jesuits were subsequent to the capitulation of the country. Those previously enacted never deprived the Jesuits of the right of holding property. The English statute \\^2()) was subsequent to the taking possession of the estates by the governement (1800). Moreover, English Penal and Common I^w do not and never did obtain in the Quebec Province (see pp. 46, 47.)

(4). Thy. }i{\\\. expresses a hope that the scheme to obtain payment from the Federal government will not be countenanced.

Rkplv : — When the Federal Government is properly informed of the facts it will no doubt act in accordance with what it will then deem just and equitable.