AN AFr«AL 
 
 TO THbl^ 
 
 MON71EAL CONFERENCE 
 
 AI^D MSTHODIST CHUKH GENERALLY, 
 
 Fiiom 4 eKAKCiE BY REV. WB^j^U SCKWf, IN WHICH m 
 
 r'm€^:'mm charge to b» invawd, and his 
 
 BEFENCJE OF THE SlgMIKARY OF ST. SUI^I^E 
 
 AGAJEI^ THBi INDIAIIgW OKA TO BE 
 
 P^^^ESS -A l^me IN PROOF 
 
 OF WHICH HE nA», BIM^EIJ' 
 
 LARGELY COS'MimTTED. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. JOHN MmlANB. 
 
 WITNES4S" PRI 
 
 ■t-- 
 
 s— 
 
 m 
 
 ■M i ii'ii ii i 
 
 r 
 
 m^^m.- JAuvM &m^m, west. 
 
 iti'ftiiiBii.iii I i i ' iirifl ig|pp«i»M tn'«iiriFf I' l r i ii'iifi'}' i?ififimiiTii j ^lrf^^ 
 
AN APPEAL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MONTREAL CONFERENCE* 
 
 AND METHODIST CHURCH GENERALLY, 
 
 FROM A CHARGE BY REV. WILLIAM SCOTT, IN WHICH IS 
 
 SHOWN HIS CHARGE TO BE INVALID, AND HIS 
 
 DEFENCE OF THE SEMINARY OF ST. SULPICE 
 
 AGAINST THE INDIANS OF OKA TO BE 
 
 BASELESS — A FACT IN PROOF 
 
 OF WHICH HE HAS HIMSELF 
 
 LARGELY CONTRIBUTED. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. JOHN BORLAND. 
 
 iHontrtai: 
 " WITNESS • PRINTING HOUSE, ST. JAMES STREET, WEST. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 When relieved by the action of the Montreal Conference, 
 now about two years ago, of all official connection with their 
 missions, I determined to enjoy the quiet thus given me 
 and leave to others the labor and anxiety which the supervision 
 of these missions necessarily involved. Mr. Scott's report of 
 the Oka Indians' affairs, has compelled me to give up this pur- 
 pose and once more to take a part— a prominent part — in Oka 
 matters. Two reasons have especial weight in this. First : 
 because Mr. Scott charges me with having " misled the Confer- 
 ence and the Methodist Church generally," by a "one-sided 
 and partial presentation of the Oka difficnlty." Secondly : 
 because in opposition to facts and arguments, hitherto believed 
 to be conclusive, Mr. Scott has delivered an opinion in fullest 
 accord with the Seminary in their most extraordinary assump- 
 tions. Few things connected with Oka affairs occasioned such 
 a surprise — such a painful surprise to many persons — as the 
 deliverance of this opinion. It was a surprise, because contra- 
 dictory of a conclusion reached through a thorough considera- 
 tion of the many fac j and arguments which have been abund- 
 antly supplied on the subject. IL was a painful surprise be- 
 cause it came from a persor appointed by his Conference to 
 watch over and promote the iiiterests of the Oka Indians to the 
 utmost of his power. Instead of which, it looked as if — and 
 using his position for the very purpose— he had betrayed those 
 interests to their bitterest enemies. 
 
 It is true that in a postscript to his report, published with 
 it, but, as he says, written about a year afterwards, Mr. Scott 
 completely overthrows all of importance which his report con- 
 
IV. 
 
 tains. But inasmuch as the light which had so recently 
 beamed upon his mind, and which had constrained him to deal 
 such destructive blows to the main positions of his report, did 
 not induce him to withdraw it, (which was the proper course 
 for him to have taken) but has allowed it rather to go out to do its 
 work of utmost mischief, I therefore am impelled from public 
 as from personal considerations to issue the accompanying let- 
 ters. From circumstances not easy to be controlled, they are 
 necessarily brief, yet I think they contain all that is material 
 for the objects at which they are aimed. 
 
 JOHN BORLAND. 
 
 Montreal, 3rd April, 1883. 
 
 *—)<Z)o 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 REASONS FOR MY APPEAL A GRAVE CHARGE BY REV. WM. 
 
 SCOIT RESPONSIBILITY ACCEPTED VIEWS UNCHANGED— 
 
 THE SEMINARY NOT OF MR. SCOTT'S OPINION ON THE MERITS 
 OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 Dear Brethren,— I am led to make an appeal to you be- 
 cause of a grave charge preferred against me by the Rev. 
 William Scott, the present Superintendent of the French and 
 Indian Missions of the Montreal Conference. The charge is 
 found in a letter from Mr. Scott to the Rev. Alex. Sutherland, 
 D.D., Secretary Treasurer of the Methodist Missionary Society, 
 Toronto, forming part of a postscript to a report relating to the 
 affairs of the Oka Indians, which, he savs, he wrote at the in- 
 stance of the Superintendent- General of Indian Affairs. Re- 
 ferring to certain letters on Oka matters which, in 1872, I ad- 
 dressed to Hon. Joseph Howe, then the Minister of Interior, 
 Mr. Scott says : " They do not contain a fair statement of any 
 of the historic facts, but they abound in harsh invective and 
 painful inuendo. The whole argument is weak and illogical, as 
 well as being at variance with the opinions of the wisest of 
 British statesmen and the judgment of men learned in the law. 
 The effect has been to complicate the affairs of Oka, and render 
 difficult any fair settlement of the Indians' claims. The 
 Montreal Conference and the Methodist Church generally have 
 been misled by the one-sided and partial presentation of the 
 Oka difficulty— more particularly the Montreal Conference." 
 
 From the above it is clear that upon me is placed a very 
 weighty responsibility. To keep silent under the circumstan- 
 ces would be a virtual confession of the truth of the cha rae. 
 
This, therefore, I may not do, but shall proceed to state such 
 facts as will enable you to judge between Mr. Scott and me, I 
 will premise what I have to say, however, with the following 
 statement, viz. : That the views I maintained in those 
 letters I still hold, and that in common with a number of gen- 
 tlenien, many of whom are distinguished either in legal, minis- 
 terial or commercial professions in Montreal and other places. 
 That since the writing of these letters I have read, and with 
 much prayerful interest, all or nearly so, that Mr. Scott says he 
 has read, and other books and documents that he does not men- 
 tion, as have several other gentlemen feeling deeply with me 
 on this matter, and we have not in one instance seen reason for 
 altering or modifying the views I then expressed and held 
 from the very first agitation of this subject. From Mr. Scott's 
 conclusions, which I will by-and-bye give you, we differ in the 
 fullest and firmest manner, and we still adhere to the oft-repeated 
 declaration, that there is no other proper or satisfactory way of 
 settling the question of title, as between the Seminary and the 
 Indians of Oka, than by a decision of the law courts. I may 
 be told that the Government years ago authorized you to take 
 such a course and at their expense. Such is true, but while 
 we — /. e., first, the Committee of French and Indian Missions 
 of the Methodist Church of Montreal, and next, the Committee 
 of the Civil Rights Alliance — made every eftbrt to bring the 
 question of title before the courts, the Seminary, by every means 
 conceivable and possible, labored, and too successfull}^ to pre- 
 vent us. Under these circumstances we worked at a great dis- 
 advantage. We had to bear all the expenses incurred by such, 
 which were very great, because, while the Government pledged 
 themselves to bear the outlay incurred in testing the title^ 
 these cases were not of this nature, therefore we could not look 
 to them for pecuniary aid. At one time the Seminary s lawyer 
 agreed with Mr. Maclaren to get up a new case, unembarrassed 
 by side issues, by which fairly and squarely to test the ques- 
 tion of title and thus put an end to this apparently endless 
 litigation. But when the consent of the Seminary was 
 
asked to this course they peremptorily refused. This, I sub- 
 mit, shows very clearly that in opposition to Mr. Scott's views 
 on this subject, as expressed in his report, and as well to 
 the claims set ap by the Seminary, and by their friends for 
 them, the Seminary are not so satisfied of the justice of their 
 case as to venture a sifting of it in the courts of law. And 
 we may uot question but that they are shrewd enough to know 
 that, c. uld they obtain such a deliverance, and in their favor it 
 must be if what they say is true, they would be placed in a 
 position very much above any they can aspire to without it. One 
 thing is certain, it would at once stop all further agitation 
 of the subject by the friends of the Indians, who would 
 then unite most heartily in pushing forward any scheme 
 that tended to the peaceful settlement of this vexed ques- 
 tion, and of these long perplexed and greatly afflicted 
 band of Indians. If asked what should be done under 
 the circumstances? I answer, the Government should in- 
 sist — and they only can do so with eflPect — that so fully 
 as the nature of the case demands, and that as soon as 
 practicable, the whole question shall be taken before the proper 
 courts of the country. That the Government have not done so 
 (and each political party is open to this charge) but have stead- 
 ily refused to take this course, has laid them open to serious 
 reflections, and the Seminary, while ringing changes on their 
 claims, have preferred a course of cruel and persistent persecu- 
 tions rather than an honest and honorable appeal to the courts 
 of the country, have drawn upon themselves charges of a grave 
 and compromising character. This no thoughtful and candid 
 person will for a moment question. With many who, as a con- 
 sequence, have reflected, and severely, upon the gentlemen of 
 the Seminary, I am one, and sometimes in doing so have acted 
 very prominently. To have had no feeling under the circum- 
 stances of cruel treatment which I have seen and heard of, as 
 practised by the Seminary and their agents upon these Indians 
 would have shown me to be in nature many degrees lower than 
 that of a human being. That I have felt deeply and sometimes 
 
8 
 
 have spoken and written strongly, has, it appears in the instance 
 already adverted to, given Mr. Scott " great sorrow." In me 
 the sorrow of which I have been conscious, was, that I did not 
 sufficiently arouse on such occasions those who ought to have 
 placed themselves as an effectual barrier between the suffering 
 Indians and their cruel oppressors. 
 
 In my next I will remark upon the report Mr. Scott has 
 written, and show why I differ from him in his findings or con- 
 clusions. 
 
 JOHN BORLAND. 
 
LETTER II. 
 
 MR. SCOTT's conclusions — ALL IN FAVOR OF THE SEMINARY — 
 ALL THAT THE SEMINARY COULD WISH — HISTORICAL RE- 
 VIEW OF THE CASE, AND WHAT IT SHOWS. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — In his report Mr. Scott says : " In my 
 judgment there are four branches of the Oka case which re- 
 quire most careful review. First. What are the titular rights 
 of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, and upon what facts do they 
 rest ? " And having given these a " careful review," he tells us, 
 as to the first : " There is, therefore, no way by which the 
 judgment of the Hon. Mr. Badgley can be impugned," which 
 is, " That the title of the corporation of the Seminary of St, 
 Sulpice of Montreal, has conferred on that body a valid and 
 absolute right of property in their several seigniories, and con- 
 stituted that body the sole absolute owners of the property 
 known as the Seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains." 
 
 The second branch, or question, is : " What is the position 
 of the Indians relative to the Seigniory of the Lake of Two 
 Mountains, and what claims have they upon the Seminary ? ^ 
 And Mr. Scott's answer is, " They are tenants at will." The 
 third question, " What is the relation of the Dominion Govern- 
 ment or the Department of Indian affairs to the Oka Indians, 
 and what obligations should the Government assume toward 
 the parties now antagonistic ? " This Mr. Scott answers in 
 substance as follows : " The Government should be regarded in 
 the light of a friendly adviser, simply ; as in this position, 
 with much interest and kind consideration, they have acted in the 
 past, and are prepared to act in the future." The fourth ques- 
 tion, is : " What is the status of Protestantism at Oka, and 
 what is the course of conduct which, under all the circum- 
 
10 
 
 stances, it may be expedient for the Methodist Missionary So- 
 ciety to pursue ?" and Mr, Scott tells us : " It remains a fact 
 not to be disputed that Protestantism exists at Oka by mere 
 sufferance. That is the status of Methodism at Oka." 
 
 Mr. Scott has charged me with misleading the Montreal Con- 
 ference and the Methodist Church generally, by a one-sided 
 and partial presentation of the Oka difficulty. But what, may 
 I ask in view of the above, has he done in his report ? The 
 Seminary, doubtless, feel jubilant over this Daniel who has 
 come to judgment so opportunely in their interest. But let 
 them moderate their joy, for there are those who do not follow 
 Mr. Scott either in his arguments or in his conclusions, and who 
 will give their reasons why they do not. 
 
 On the Hon. Mr. Badgley's opinion, already given, I will 
 satisfy myself with but a "remark or two for the present. I can 
 concur with Mr. Badgley with the following admissions, which 
 he will allow, I doubt not. First, by the Act of 1841, the 
 Seminary of St. Sulpice, of Montreal, were, for the first time, 
 incorporated. Second, the Act by which they were then incor- 
 porated legally invested them with the possession of the sev- 
 eral seigniories they had been permitted to hold up to that 
 time. Thirdly, the Act which incorporated them and thus 
 made them the ** absolute owners " of the seigniories in ques- 
 tion, declared at the same time the object of their incorpora- 
 tion, and which constitute the legal limits or restrictions of 
 their action. That while within those limits or restrictions 
 they are in a certain sense " absolute," yet, beyond them they 
 hi.ve no power or right of action whatever. Hence, the follow- 
 ing questions are not only pertinent but important here : — 1. 
 What are these limits or restrictions which the Act of 1841 
 has thrown around the eminary to bind and regulate its ac- 
 tion ? 2. Have the Indians of Oka any interest in the lands 
 of the seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains, and if so, 
 what does that interest amount to ? 3. Have the Seminary of 
 St. Sulpice fairly and faithfully observed the conditions or 
 limitations of their Act of incorporation, in the case of these 
 
11 
 
 Indians ; and if not, as many believe they have not, on whom 
 rests the responsibih'ty to investigate the case and take action 
 accordinoflv ? 
 
 Ere I take up these questions for discussion, I propose giv- 
 ing a little history of the Seminary and their properties in 
 Canada, which, I think, will be helpful to a right understand- 
 ing of the subject in hand. 
 
 It is well known that in the early part of the seventeenth 
 century the settlement of Canada by the Government and peo- 
 ple of France was to them a deeply interesting question. It was 
 felt desirable not only to induce the French to emigrate there, 
 but also to evangelize the Indian tribes, and thus lead to their 
 fettling down in civilized communities with the French. Gar- 
 neau in his history, tells us : " The prevalent desire in France " 
 was that " the Christianized savages should beheld to be natur- 
 alized subjects of France, with every privilege belonging to 
 that right, without requiring letters of naturalization therefor.' 
 And so greatly was this idea cherished that Champlain is said 
 to have exclaimed : " It is a more glorious thing to secure the 
 salvation of one soul than to conquer an Empire" While the 
 Jesuits in exulting over their achievements in this respect ask, 
 " Is it not a highly commendable sight to behold soldiers and 
 artizans, Frenchmen and savages, dwelling together peaceably 
 and enjoying the good of each other ? " 
 
 These facts will explain why it was the King of France so 
 readily acceded to requests for grants of land to corporations, 
 religious and otherwise, who desired to promote the civilization 
 of the Aborigines of Canada. Another fact, pertinent to the 
 occasion, is, that Louis the XIV. was particularly anxious to guard 
 against the religious corporations acquiring property, in land 
 or otherwise, for their own aggrandizement. Hence, while he 
 gave lands readily to these bodies for the settlement of the 
 country, they well knew they could not have obtained such on 
 any other plea. Among the first companies formed and in- 
 vested with land was that called " The Hundred Associates." 
 This Company was constituted of priests and laymen, and while 
 
12 
 
 it contemplated emigration with trading objects, it had special 
 reference to the conversion of the Indians. 
 
 After but a few years of operation, this Company sold out 
 its interest in the Seminary of St Sulpice. M. Dupin, an 
 eminent French barrister, whom the Seminary had engaged, 
 while urging their claims upon the English Government, ex- 
 plains* the transfer as follows : " That the said Associates, in 
 their quality aforesaid for the promotion and in considera- 
 tion of the conversion of the Indians of New France (Canada) 
 have given and do give by these presents, &c., &c., to the 
 priests of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, <^c., &., and the said 
 parties have agreed that after the charges herein above men- 
 tioned shall have been paid, for the preservation of the Island 
 and the continuance of the work, there shall remain any por- 
 sion of the revenue arising from the property hereby ceded, 
 such remainder shall be employed for the advancement of the 
 work." Any doubt as to the nature of this work M Dupin re- 
 moves by the following statement : " It was made (The Royal 
 assent for the transfer which had to be obtained, and was made 
 known by letters patent) " for an object clearly pointed out, 
 for the promotion and in consideration of the conversion of the 
 Indians in New France ; the whole was consecrated to this 
 work ; and even in case of excess or an increase in revenue, 
 such excess or increase was to be employed iti like manner." 
 " The whole principle of the donation," he adds, " was exclu- 
 sively destined to the accomplishment of the work pointed 
 out." 
 
 On the acquisition of this property the Seminary commenc- 
 ed a mission to the Indians, first in Montreal, and then at the 
 Sault au RecoUet. Having obtained the Seigniory and Island of 
 Montreal on such easy terms, and now being assured of its pos- 
 session, the Seminary thought of further acquisition, and made 
 that of the Lake of Two Mountains in the following way : 
 " Our gentlemen," says the late Rev. T. A. Baile, Superior of 
 the Seminary, " petitioned first, so as to enable them to trans- 
 fer the Indian Mission which they had at their own expense." 
 
13 
 
 (and yet for this very object, a mission to the Indians, they had 
 the Seigniory and Island of Montreal put into their hands) 
 "established in our Seigniory of Montreal in 1677." This appli- 
 cation was made in 1717, and by it they obtained a grant of 
 land nine miles square. Again, another application was made 
 by " our gentlemen,'' and in 1735 they acquired an additional 
 grant, which, with the former one enlarged their boundary at 
 the Lake of Two Mountains to eighteen miles square and that 
 in one of the richest portions of land in the Province of Quebec. 
 
 Here let me call attention to the plea put forth in each in- 
 stance by the Seminary for these grants. It was to enable them, 
 they tell us, to transfer upon them the mission of the Indians 
 of Sault-au Recollect on condition that thev should bear the 
 whole expense necessary for removing the said mission, and 
 also cause a church and a fort to be built there of stone at their 
 own cost, for the security of the Indians. Sometimes, for a 
 purpose easily apprehended, they have added to the words " for 
 the security of the Indians, and the defence of the Colony,** 
 as if others besides the Indians and their teachers, &c., were 
 implied in the provisions of these grants. In the applications 
 it will be noticed that for the Indians and for them only, were 
 they offered, as for their interests simply do the Seminary af- 
 fect to be influenced or concerned. And equally clear is it 
 that settlement, in maintenance and protection for these Indians, 
 and any others who might be induced to join them on those 
 lands, were the objects, the only objects, expressed or clearly 
 implied in the minds of the grantors, viz., the King of France 
 and his Government, what ever may have been the purposes, 
 secret or otherwise, of " our gentlemen " of the Seminary in 
 asking for them. 
 
 We come now to the cession of Canada to England. The 
 Seminary of St. Sulpice, in Paris, who were the only legal holders 
 of the various properties in Canada we have referred to, were 
 represented by certain ecclesiastics of their order in Canada. 
 In the articles of capitulation were several which gave a right 
 
to those French in Canada who did not like to remain under 
 British rule, to sell their properties and take the proceeds 
 thereof to France. An article — the 35th in order — was made 
 in behalf of the religious orders authorizing them to do the 
 same. This article, however, was first reserved for the King's 
 consent, and then subsequently disallowed. This, by some, has 
 been questioned, while others have written and argued as if the 
 very reverse were the fact. Mr. Scott has fallen into this error. 
 He refers to a preceding article which gave authority to "those 
 persons who chose to retire and quit the province to sell their 
 estates and effects to British subjects and return to France," 
 and says : " This article of the treaty gave effect to the thirty- 
 fifth article of capitulation relating to the priests of the Semi- 
 nary of St. Sulpice." That this is an error and a grave one, 
 Mr. Scott should have known, and knowing ought not to have 
 used it. It was so material to the Seminary's assertion of 
 claims that we may not wonder at their boldness and perti- 
 nacity in preferring it ; but certainly no one on whom truth 
 and consistency are acknowledged to have predominant 
 claims, should take up their role. The controversies which 
 were maintained between the Seminary and the British 
 Government, and which began almost immediately after 
 the assumption of the Government of Canada by the British, 
 could have had no existence as they could have had no 
 reason had this article been granted. The granting of 
 the article would not only have prevented the conflicts carried 
 on so earnestly, at least by the Seminary, but also of any neces- 
 sity for the famous act of 1841. But as this article was refused 
 the party in Paris sought to meet the case by making over their 
 properties in Canada to the members of their body yet living 
 there. This the law officers of the Crown resisted, which fact, 
 with its reasons, Mr. Lindsay gives in his " Rome in Canada." 
 He quotes from a judgment given by Chief- Justice Sewell in 
 the Supreme Court in Quebec in a case of appeal from Fleming 
 vs. the Seminary of St. Sulpice. They had entered an action 
 as Seigniors to restrain him from the working of a mill which 
 
15 
 
 he had built on the Seigniory. " The motive of the gift of the 
 island to the Seminary of St. Sulpiee, Paris/' said the learned 
 judge, in 1633, by an association for the conversion of the In- 
 dians in that island, called a trust, which was never fulfilled, 
 and the title was bad from non-user. The Frencli king afterward 
 authorized the establishment of a Seminary at Montreal to car- 
 ry out the grant The deed of gift, April 1764, by 
 
 which the Seminary of St. Sulpiee, Paris, assumed to convey 
 the property to the Seminary in Montreal is void. The Island 
 of Montreal being vested in a foreign community incapable of 
 holding lands in Her Majesty's Dominion, the right of property 
 would devolve to the crown. The estates were public property 
 held by the Seminary of St. Sulpiee, Paris, under trust for a 
 particular purpose — and they fell to the crown by right of con- 
 quest. The absence of a right to transfer the property must 
 make the deed of gift null. The right of the property in the 
 Seminary was only that of administrators, and not such as 
 would entitle them to convey. The grantees, not being a 
 distinct corporation, were incapacitated from taking under the 
 deed. Without a new charter the Seminary could not be pro- 
 longed after the death of such of its members as were alive at 
 the time of the conquest." And *' that while the Seminary 
 could plead possession they could do so as proprietors." 
 
 I will now point to a series of events, each of which sustains 
 my position, but when taken together they render it impregna- 
 ble. In 1764 the article of capitulation is refused. In 1773 
 Sir James Marriott, the advocate-general, justifies the refusal 
 by an argument similar to that of Justice Sewell already given. 
 In 1774, an act called the North America Act, was passed by 
 the English Parliament, " to secure to the Roman Catholic 
 clergy the legal enjoyment of their lands, and their titles in their 
 own commuiiion, or from all who professed the Roman Catholic 
 religion." But in that act the Seminary of St. Sulpiee, and 
 others like it are excluded in the following distinct and specific 
 manner : " To the Roman Catholic clergy, except the regulars, 
 or members of the religious orders." In 1804, Mr. SeweU, then 
 
16 
 
 the Attorney-General of Lower Canada, prepared an able and 
 comprehensive report for the ^ j > ernment in which he refuted 
 the claims of the Seminary, in 1811, was the important trial 
 on appeal already referred to, in which Justice Sewell so fully 
 ruled against the Seminary. In 1^19, the Duke of Richmond, 
 then the Governor-General of Canada, took measures against 
 the Seminary to compel a surrender of the estates in question ; 
 and this was followed by similar action of Lord Aylmer in 
 1836. To say in the face of all these facts that the 
 35th article of capitulation was granted, evinces a hardi- 
 hood of purpose little short of recklessness to the claims 
 of truth. After the rebellion of 1837-8, the Seminary 
 asked, as a reward for the services they were said to have 
 rendered the Government at the time, the confirmation of their 
 title to the estates so long a subject of controversy and of con- 
 flict. Sir John Colborne granted their request and caused an 
 ordinance to that effect to be passed by his council. And here 
 we have an important fact in this controversy which the Sem- 
 inary and their friends appear wishful to keep out of sight. 
 How is it that, like other friends of the Seminary, Mr. Scott has 
 lost sight of it ? That fact is, that this ordinance, like the 35th 
 Article of Capitulation, was disallowed by the Home authorities; 
 and that because it was " absolute," and had not in favor of the 
 parties interested in these estates even as the Seminary " the 
 terms, provisos, conditions and limitations" necessary to secure 
 and protect to them such interests. Let those who contend for 
 the " absolute rights " of the Seminary ponder and acknowledge 
 this. It was not until Lord Sydenham's day that the act was 
 passed which gave the Seminary the legal status they had 
 so long and so persistently sought. The passing of this 
 act through the English Parliament was strongly opposed by 
 the Bishop of Exeter and others, but it was defended by the 
 Earl of Hipon, the Duke of Wellington and other peers in the 
 House of Lords, and eventually was passed. Mr. Scott refers 
 to this discussion as though it was maintained in defence of the 
 extreme claims now made by the Seminary. Such, however, was 
 
17 
 
 not the case. The question pending was, shall we maintain the 
 right of the Crown as heretofore held, and in doing so proceed to 
 enforce the surrender by the Seminary of the estates in question ; 
 or, shall we consent to incorporate the Seminary in Montreal 
 and give to them, and for the like purpose, the titles which the 
 Seminary of Paris held previous to the conquest. The Parlia- 
 ment saw that endless conflicts of a painful character were on 
 one side of the outlook, and that pacification and contentment 
 might be on the other. Hence they chose the one that pro- 
 mised a peaceful course. But here, let io be observed, the 
 whole qoestion we are now considering turns upon the light in 
 which the titles, as originally held by the Seminary of Paris, is 
 regarded, and how the Act of 1841 assists us in its interpretation. 
 
 JOHN BORLAND. 
 
LETTER III. 
 
 SEMINARY S TITLE EXAMINED — A CORPORATION SIMPLY, AST>, 
 AS SUCH, LIMITED AND CONTROLLED IN POSSESSION AND 
 USE OF PROPER TIES— WHAT THE ACT OF 1841 DPXLARKS 
 — THE AC HON OF CERTAIN PERSONS EXTRAORDINARY — 
 THE RELATION OF THE PARriES TRACED AND THEIR 
 EIGHTS EXPLAINED. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — Let u^ now look at the claim in behalf 
 of the Seminary which Mr. Scott supports. lie says : — " The 
 Seminary found occasion to invoke the candor and honor of their 
 new rulers all through the protracted negotiations, and finally 
 all doubts and controversies as to rights and titles were decentlv 
 interred by the ordinance of 1840. There is, therefore, no way 
 by which the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Badgley can be im- 
 pugned on this question of title," which is : " That the title of 
 the corporation of the Seminary of St. Sulpice of Montreal has 
 conferred on that body a valid and absolute right of property 
 in their several seigniories, and constituted that body the sole 
 absolute owners of the property known as the Seigniory of the 
 Lake of Two Mountains." This is a very strongly worded 
 opinion, yet, in one view of the case, cannot be " impugned." 
 We have many bodies corporate in our midst. Banks, Insur- 
 ance companies, &c., &c. These, according to the acts by which 
 they were incorporated, their charters, hold property, and in 
 law and fact are the owners, the absolute owners, if you will, of 
 these properties. But such proprietory claims can only be sus- 
 tained while they act according to the terms of their charters. 
 Within these they are absolute ; beyond them they are power- 
 less. In taking up the act of 1841 — the charter of the Seminary 
 
19 
 
 bv wliicli they were for the first time incorporated and empow- 
 ered to hold legally — we see several objects mentioned for which 
 the revenues from their estates are to be applied. Then any sur- 
 plus over and above required for these specified objects, can be 
 used at the instance of " the Governor of this Province for the 
 time being," for " such other religious, charitable and educa- 
 tional institutions, as may from time to time be approved and 
 sanctioned ' by him. And then it is added, " to or for no other 
 objects, purposes or intents whatsoever." And, further, to 
 show the charter-like character of this act of incorporation, and 
 as marking the control it was the purpose of the framers of the 
 Act should be exercised over this Seminary, it is declared, that 
 beyond the sum of § 120,000, they shall not invest for income 
 any portion of the revenue from these estates. And again, that 
 " the said ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice of Mont- 
 real, shall, whenever and so often as they may be hereunto re- 
 quired by the Governor of this Province, lay before him, or be- 
 fore such ofiicers as he shall appoint a full, clear and detailed 
 statement of the estate, property, income, debts and expendi- 
 ture, and of all the pecuniary and temporal afiairs of the said, 
 corporadon, in such manner and form, and with such attesta- 
 tions of correctness a^ the Governor shall direct." And as we 
 know that all chartered companies are so bound by their char- 
 teis as they may not in any measure go beyond the limits they 
 prescribe, so, evidently, and with a similar design, did the fram- 
 ers of the act in 1841 mark out the course the beminary should 
 be required to pui'sue. Hence, we have the particulars 1 have 
 just given, and a> well with them the objects for which the in- 
 come from the estates should be applied distinctly specified. 
 " And to and for the purposes, objects and intents following, 
 that is to say, the cure of souls within the parish of Montreal 
 — the mission of the Lake of Two Mountains . . . the support 
 of the petit semmnre or College of Montreal, the support of the 
 poor, invalids and orphans, the sufficient support and mainte- 
 nance of the members of the corporation, its officers and ser- 
 vants, and the support of such other religious, charitable and 
 
20 
 
 educational institutions as may, from time to time, be approved 
 and sanctioned by the Governor of the Province for the time 
 being — and for no other object, purposes or intents whatso- 
 ever. ' We see in the above, that a ** support and maintenance" 
 for the Seminary and their servants is thus provided for ; and 
 the natural inference from which is, that, but for this fact it 
 would have been unlawful for them to have appropriated to 
 this end one cent of the revenue from the estates they hold, 
 nor less so for any other object than for those so clearly and 
 distinctly specified in the act. In view of these facts — facts as 
 clear as the sunlight, the pretensions of the Seminary to abso- 
 lute and exclusive ownership is the merest assumption. But 
 if so, what shall we say of those who have given so much 
 learned labor to sustain them in their high, unjust and unau- 
 thorized pretensions ? For men of the religious faith of the 
 Seminary, and having a political life to care for, (the late Sir 
 Geo. E. Cartier's remarkable failure to secure his election for 
 Montreal East speaks significantly and loudly on the subject), 
 much may be said that I do not care now to go into. But for 
 Ex- Judge Badgley and the Rev. Mr. Scott some other consider- 
 ations must be thought of to explain their action in this instance. 
 I think that any schoolboy will understand the question when 
 he looks at it in the light of simple facts and history. He will 
 know that while chartered companies can hold properties in 
 the fullest sense in which a legal document can convey them, 
 yet, in all instances, not only is the reason of their creation 
 stated, but with such the limits of their rights and powers are 
 described. Within these limits they are as strong as the law, 
 ^ and the power to enforce it can make them. But let them go 
 beyond these limits, then are they weak as other men. And 
 not only so, but it becomes then the duty of a Government 
 to make them aware of that fact ; and, if the case be sufficient- 
 ly grave to demand such action, to annul the charter, the con- 
 ditions of which they had violated or evaded. Such a thing 
 has often been done and properly so when legally justified. A 
 ^reat deal of forensic technicality — of learned quibbling — has 
 
21 
 
 been thrown over this whole subject, by which, as in a dark or 
 hazy mist, it has become enveloped. Because of this many in 
 trying to obtain a proper understanding of the question have 
 been misled, or completely bew.ldered. Nor can I believe that 
 Mr. Scott's present contribution to the literature now abounding 
 on the subject will in the least help to a better apprehension of 
 its nature. Here, then, I place myself, and will contend, that 
 the Seminary of St. Suipice of Montreal, are but a chartered 
 corporation. That their action as such is prescribed and bound 
 by limits clearly and fully described and defined, not only in 
 the original grants to their society in Paris but now and 
 especially by the Act of 1841. That " the terms, provisos, 
 conditions and limitations " of this Act are open for considera- 
 tion, and if it can be shown that the Seminary of St. Suipice 
 has violated any of these " terms, provisos," &c,, &c., especially 
 in a serious degree, it becomes the duty of the Government to 
 investigate the case, and to deal with it even, if needs be, to the 
 annulling and making void forever the charter that has been 
 violated and abused. I make no pretensions to aught but some 
 knowledge of history and a little common sense ; and shall be 
 glad if any of the great legal luminaries who have treated this 
 subject in the interest of the Seminary, or at the instance of 
 the Government, will show where I am mistaken. Now, then, 
 we are open to a proper consideration of the relative claims of 
 the Indians and Seminary of St. Suipice to the Lake lands. I 
 might, indeed, extend my range of reference, not to the Indians 
 of Oka in particular, or to the Lake of Two Mountains lands, 
 but to the Indians in general, and the whole of the estates held 
 by the Seminary. For, beyond a question, for the Indian race, 
 without limi*^^ were the seigniory and Island of Montreal, as 
 well as that oi the Lake, in « legal sense designed. But I will 
 restrict myself to the seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains 
 and to the Indians so long resident there, for the present at 
 least. The Act of 1841 specifies the Lake seigniory as a part 
 of the estate held by the Seminary. The Act declares also that 
 such, with the other portions of these estates should provide 
 
22 
 
 for "the mission of the Lake of Two Mountains, for the in- 
 struction and spiritual care of the Algonquin and Iroquois In- 
 dians." Here is seen a great narrowing down of the spirit and 
 purpose of the King and Government of France in making the 
 grants of those estates to this Seminary. From the standpoint 
 which, it has been imagined, this wording of the act gives we 
 have the provision made for the Indians reduced to so fine a 
 point that, at last it is all but invisible. The Rev. Mr. Baile 
 says : " The Indians are on our lands, and they can only have 
 the titles which we think proper to grant them." The Hon. 
 Mr. Langevin says : " It is found that the titles of the Seig- 
 niory of the Lake of Two Mountains, and acts of Parliament re- 
 lating thereto, give the Gentlemen of the Seminary of St Sul- 
 pice the absolute ownership of the said seigniory, consequently 
 the Indians have no rights of property therein." The Hon. 
 Mr. Laflamme says, " That the claim of the Indians is justified 
 by no recognized principle of law." The Hon. Mr. Badgley 
 says : " The Oka Indians have not, and never had any lawful 
 proprietary claims to the property of the said Lake seigniory.'* 
 And the Rev. Wm. Scott tells us, " They," the Indians, " are 
 tenants at will.'' It is true Mr. Scott does not appear quite 
 satisfied with this conclusion, and he therefore speaks of "moral 
 claims," which " a court of equity" would recognize. I appre- 
 hend the chance of getting from any court the recognition of a 
 claim simply moral, having no legal foundation or backing, 
 would be verv small indeed. But now, let us consider the fol- 
 lowing points : What band of Indians in the Dominion ev^n 
 having the fullest recognition of rights in a reserve, has pro- 
 prietary claims ? Or who has asked for proprietary claims in 
 behalf of the Indians of Oka, and set up such as against the 
 claims of the Seminary ? Have not these learned gentlemen 
 been knocking down a man of straw of their own making ? 
 What friend of the L dians bu has all along been aware that 
 the idea of proprietory rights is out of the question for Indians 
 anywhere so long as the law, which regards and treats them as 
 minors, is as it is ? Bu'. does this fact establish the pretensions 
 
23 
 
 of the Seminary, cr put a person out of court who stands up 
 for better terms for the Oka Indians than they have received 
 for m my years past from the Seminary ? Let me ask are the 
 Indians of Caughnawaga, for instance, possessed of proprietory 
 claims in the lands on which they live ? And because they have 
 not s'lch, are they, therefore, " tenants at will ?'' Or, would the 
 Government say to them — they holding the same relation to 
 these Indians which the Seminary does to those of Oka — ** The 
 Indians are on our own lands, and they can only have the titles 
 which we think proper to grant them ?' A consideration of 
 these queries will serve to blow away a large amount of dust 
 which, with much labor, has been thrown on this point of the 
 subject. But then is it not a fact, I may be asked, that what 
 the law of 1841 binds the Gentlemen of the Seminarvto do for 
 the Indians is simply to provide *" for their instruction and 
 spiritual care," and if so, so long as they keep a church and 
 school open for these purposes, do they not fulfil the terms of 
 their charter ? Such is the plea put in by Mr. Laflamme, and 
 that by which ' h^ Seminary his long been trying to narrow 
 down its action towards these Indians. But will any one say, 
 eve a if such were the literal rendering of the act, that we should 
 by ruled by it who knows what the intention of the French 
 King and his government was when the grants of these estates 
 were first made ? None will deny that the clearly expressed 
 purpose of the original donors of a property is always taken to 
 explain questions which, on such a subject, have been raised. 
 But we are not left to usage or precedent to guide us here, for 
 we have authority full and clear in the act itself. It says : 
 " Nothing in this act shall extend to, destroy, diminish, or in 
 any manner to affect the rights and privileges of the Crown, or 
 of any person or persons, society or corporate body, excepting 
 such only as this act and the said ordinance expressly and es- 
 pecially destroy, diminish or affect." Hence, whatever were 
 the rights of the Indians as may be gathered from the express- 
 ed designs of the French king and Government, and fol- 
 lowed by others who were governed thereby, should be taken to 
 
guide us in our decisions on this question. Therefore, we can 
 do without the information which Mr. Laflamme supplies on 
 this point from " Shea's American Catholic Missions." In the 
 brief historical outline given in a previous letter — a verification 
 of which can be found in Garneau's History of Canada — we see 
 the evangelization and settlement of the Indians in lands from 
 which they should be taught to obtain a maintenance, was a 
 leading and cherished idea of the French people. That for such 
 ends the religious orders who came to Canada, readily obtained 
 grants of lands, when, had they been asked for on a personal 
 plea for their order, would have been refused. The Jesuits and 
 Sulpicians made full use of their opportunity and obtained 
 large grants from the French Crown. How the Indians were 
 then treated may be gathered from an exultant declaration of the 
 Jesuits as follows : " Is it not a highly commendable sight to 
 behold soldiers and artizans, Frenchmen and savages, dwelling 
 together peaceably, and enjoying the goodwill of each other." 
 Mr. Garneau says, " the prevalent desire in France at the 
 time " was that " the Christianized savages should be held to be 
 natural born subjects of France, with every privilege belonging 
 to that right without requiring letters of naturalization there- 
 for." In all essential particulars the grants made to the reli- 
 gious orders were the same. Hence the condition of the Indians 
 settled on the Jesuit's lands is material on this point. Those at 
 Caughnawaga are near at hand and will serve our purpose for 
 reference. To these emplacements were assigned somewhat 
 similar to the concession of lots to the French on seigniories. 
 When the Jesuit order was suppressed the Government took 
 their place, and became to the Indians what the Jesuits, so far 
 as the management of their lands were concerned, had been. In 
 the relation and conduct of the Government to these Indians 
 we see the relation, in the matter of land, of the Seminary to 
 the Indians of Oka, and if their conduct has been widely dis- 
 similar from that of the Government, as it has been, then just 
 insomuch have we a justification in condemning such conduct, 
 and in demanding, in the interests of the Indians, a reform. 
 
Messrs. Doutre and Maclaren in a memorial to Lord Dufferin 
 in behalf of the Indians, put this view of the case in a clear and 
 forcible light. Mr. Scott refers to this with a kind of sneer. 
 It had been better for him if he had allowed their argument 
 its due effect upon his mind. While the Seminary were without 
 a title to these lands, and, as in their case against Fleming, they 
 found to their cost that they had not the legal status they 
 fondly hoped they had, they defended the Lake lands from 
 tresspassers as the guardians of the Indip.ns. Then the Indians 
 had the fullest liberty to cut wood or till the soil, as their in- 
 terests prompted them. When the famous act of 1841 was 
 passed then the scene was changed ; and restrictions for the 
 Indians were laid down and enforced. Since then Indians in 
 any number, and in the most cruel manner, have been arrested, 
 tried and imprisoned for cutting wood for the most ordinary 
 purposes of living. Every means have been employed to starve 
 the Indians out, and drive them from Oka. And will anyone 
 say that such conduct was in accordance with the purposes of 
 the French Government in making these grants ? But, it may 
 be said, when the Indians became Protestants they lost their 
 claim upon the Seminary, and on the lands which the Seminary 
 held. This I deny ; but let the person who makes this plea on 
 behalf of the Seminary know, and there are not a few who need 
 this information, that it was several years before these Indians 
 turned Protestants that the altered treatment of the Seminary 
 toward them was complained of. Yes ; and further, let such 
 persons be informed of this fact ; that it was the conduct of the 
 Seminary which first drove these Indians from the Church of 
 Rome. No Protestant minister had been to Oka — certainly not 
 a Methodist one — until after this disruption. And then, as a 
 matter of merest mercy and pity, were these Indians taken up 
 who needed, with sound Scriptural teaching, the commonest 
 necessaries of life, many of them being in a most pitiable condi- 
 tion of poverty and want. From that time on, for years, the 
 Methodists had to appeal to a charitable public to enable them 
 to minister to the temporal wants of these suffering people. 
 
26 
 
 Suffering through want of both food and raiment while the ' 
 Seminary were enjoying abundance from the very properties 
 they had obtained for the benefit of these Indians, While no 
 enlightened person will say, can say in truth and propriety, 
 that the Seminary of St. Sulpice has kept faith with the King 
 and Government of France, or with the British Government 
 and Parliament, which confirmed to them the title of these 
 lands, so neither can anyone say that the Government of Ca- 
 nada is guiltless in not interfering to uphold the principles of the 
 charter granted this Seminary, and in so doing to protect these 
 Indians from acts of oppression and cruelty, alike a reflection 
 on the country at large as to them. Feeling that something 
 should be done, must be done, if a foul blot is to be removed 
 from our name as a people, the Government are trying to ef- 
 fect the removal of these Indians to far off lands. But what, I 
 may ask, does this mean ? Why, if anything, it means that 
 the Seminary are too powerful a body for our Government to 
 grapple with. We cannot compel them to do justice to these 
 Indians, and therefore, as a matter of precedence and p^ >licy, for 
 peace-sake, we very much desire to get out of our difficulty by 
 getting the Indians away from Oka ! And are we come to this 
 pass, really ? If so, then are we enslaved most truly. A gov- 
 ernaient that cannot enforce a law is no government, and the 
 sooner we know this the better. Law, we know, can be en- 
 forced against these poor Indians, but not for them. Again 
 and again the police have been brought to Oka, not to arrest 
 the persecutor and put a stop to persecution, but to arrest the 
 persecuted and reduce him to absolute and starving obedience. 
 To this state of things who would willingly bow ? Let the 
 whole subject be brought before the Courts. Let them pro- 
 nounce on the merits of the question, and then with all other 
 friends of these Indians, if the judgment should be adverse to 
 them, I will bow, and however I may regret such, I will sub- 
 mit to it. But until that is done, whatever others may do, I 
 never will be one to compromise this question by a wholesale 
 
 deportation of the Indians from Oka. 
 
 JOHN BORLAND. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 TWO LAST QUESTIOX8 DISPOSED OF THE REV. WM. SCOIT S 
 
 IMPROVED VIEWS HE REFUTES AND OVERTHROWS HIS 
 
 OWX POSITIONS. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — Having disposed of what may be called 
 tlie major matters of Mr. Scott's report, viz., the titular rights 
 of the Seminary and the position of the Indians relative to the 
 Seigniory of the Lake of Two Mountains, I will now notice 
 one or two particulars that should not be passed by. 
 
 The first of these is the status of Protestantism at Oka, and 
 that of the Methodist Church in particular. Xo one will ques- 
 tion but that the evangelization of the Indians was in order to 
 their becoming attached to the Roman Catholic Church, just as 
 their civilization was to place them under the rule and auspices 
 of the French Governnipnt. ]5ut as we see the change in the 
 government over them was not to affect, much less to destroy, 
 the title to these lands by the Seminary, then why, may I not 
 ask, should a change of faith in these Indians destroy their 
 previously professed interest in them ? Especially may this 
 question be pressed when it is known that the actual enjoyment 
 of these lands is more clearlv set forth in behalf of the Indians 
 than in that of the Seminary. But this position is very much 
 strengthened by the fact that the change of church relation in 
 the Indians was caused by the conduct of the Seminary toward 
 them, and not through any proselytizing efrbrts of the Metho- 
 dists or of anv other section of the Protestant Church. That 
 lands which were placed in the hands of the Seminary for both 
 the religious and temporal interests of these Indians should be 
 held for those interests, even when by the conduct of the Semi- 
 
28 
 
 nary, these Indians were driven from theirs to another church, 
 must be admitted, otherwise, the Indians would be punished, 
 not for any wrong-doing of their own, but for that of the 
 Seminary, an act of injustice too glaring for any reasonable 
 or judicious mind to support. Hence, when Mr. Scott says 
 Protestantism, in the Methodist Church, exists at Oka simply 
 on sufferance, he is as far from a just apprehension of his 
 subject here, as on any other he has assumed a disposition of. 
 
 On this point, as on others of moment, Mr. Scott's mind 
 appears to have undergone a very marked change since he 
 wrote his report. In a postscript to it, written as he tells us, 
 ** nearly a whole year," afterward, he says : " The Govern- 
 ment of the Dominion has no right to bo perplexed and an- 
 noyed in this matter of money, when the whole immense 
 resources of the Seminary are considered, and considered, too, in 
 respect of the purposes for tchich the lands were originally granted.'* 
 Again, " As I have shown these lands were not granted to the 
 Indians, hut it is equally certain that they were granted with refer- 
 ence to their salvation and civilization^ "VVe may congratulate 
 Mr. Scott on the improvement in his views on this subject so 
 apparent in these extracts ; yet, may I not ask him, was it but 
 for a limited number of years this lien was placed on these 
 lands, and at the expiration of which the Seminary would be at 
 liberty to drive the Indians from them ? If not, but if the 
 lien rather was to be considered a perpetual one, then who 
 should see into and correct or punish any infraction of the 
 charter containing this lien if not the government ? Since 
 writing his report, Mr. Scott has evidently risen to a higher 
 and clearer outlook upon this whole subject, hence, in his nota- 
 ble postscript we are told : " The Seminary cannot afford to be 
 indifferent to the voice of the multitude which has respect for 
 . the claims of the aborigines of Canada. Legal technicalities 
 do not affect the masses — they look to the equity of any dis- 
 puted topic." Just so, and the multitude of Canada and others 
 beyond our limits have been, and still are looking at the equity 
 of this topic, as well as its legal aspect, and this all parties 
 
29 
 
 should bear in mind. Again, Mr. Scott says. "There is a deep 
 seated conviction that although the Indians may not have a 
 legal claim to the lands as owners thereof^ (The italics in this 
 and other instances are mine. I want attention to this state- 
 ment. It bears the appearance of a quibble frequently used by 
 opponents to the Indian claims. Being minors how can the 
 Indians be " owners '' or " proprietors " of these or of any lands ? 
 But as parents and guardians can hold for minors and the law 
 hold them accountable in behalf of the minors, then why deny 
 such to these Indians ? ) " They are nevertheless entitled to 
 compensation for the loss of lands which they had been led to 
 suppose were set apart for their benefit." And would not Mr. 
 Scott, even as others have done, lead them to such a supposi- 
 tion ? I infer that he would now, at least, from the following 
 found in his remarkable postscript : *' The impression prevails 
 that the Indians have an interest in all their (the Seminary's) 
 estates, insomuch as every deed and instrument of whatever 
 sort granted hy the King of France and confirmed by the law of 
 1840, distinctly includes the Indians of New France or of the 
 Dominion as jxirties to be benefited by the grants. Accumula- 
 tions of wealth are not contemplated by the said grants, but 
 the ditfasion and continuance of benefits temporal and spiritual,'* 
 These quotations show a marvellous advance in Mr. Scott to- 
 ward a right understanding of this vexed question ; nor would 
 I refrain from saying, could I judge of him by ordinary prin- 
 ciples, such as are applied to men generally, he now very much 
 regrets having written his report, so clearly does he in his 
 postscript overthrow its strongest positions. 
 
 The other point, and now the only one, that I wish to 
 remark upon, is the regret Mr. Scott expresses for being 
 " misled" to an act of which he writes in the following strain : 
 " In 1876 I knew no more than the rest of my brethren, and 
 therefore as President of the Conference for that year I con- 
 sented to an address or petition to Her Most Gracious Majesty, 
 praying for redress of wrongs charged against the Seminary. 
 I now know that the said petition abounds with errors of the 
 
30 
 
 most serious character, and ought not to have been adopted. I 
 never heard of its reception by the Queen, and I suppose it 
 was not deemed worthy of presentation. In that I sorrowfully 
 concur." For Mr. Scott's sorrow I care but little, but for the 
 character and history of that memorial I feel much, and the 
 reason of this I will make, I think, sufficiently clear to the 
 reader. In a meeting of the committee of the Civil Rights 
 Alliance, and at a time when that committee was composed of 
 many of the leading ministers and laity of the Protestant 
 churches of Montreal, tlie Oka case was under consideration. 
 The cruelties toward the Indians on the part of the Seminary 
 and the inertness of the Government to supply any remedy for 
 such, led the committee to conclude upon getting up a memo- 
 rial to the Queen. It was thought that as the grants to the 
 Seminary were royal grants, so it would be highly proper to 
 memorialize Her Majesty to appoint a commission to enquire 
 into their nature and to see whether or not the Seminary was 
 carrying out the design alike of the original donors and of the 
 act of 1841. A sub-committee, consisting of several of the 
 most distinguished members of the committee, was appointed 
 to draw up the memorial, the particulars of which had been 
 agreed upon. The sub-committee faithfully performed its 
 work and sent a copy of the memorial to the several Protestant 
 churches in the Dominion with the request that should their 
 annual Union, Synod, Conference or Presbytery, approve of it, 
 they would forward the memorial as from their church to the 
 Ottawa Government for transmission to the Queen. The Con- 
 gregational Union was the first which met, and having approved 
 of the memorial sent it to the Government at Ottawa for trans- 
 mission as requested. But before the other churches had 
 time to act, we were all astounded by the intelligence that the 
 colonial Secretary had declined to present the memorial, be- 
 cause, as he said, the question of title as between the Seminary 
 and the Indians had, at the expense of the Dominion Govern- 
 ment, been decided by the courts of law. (I give the substance 
 of the reply, not having at hand the exact words of it.) This 
 
31 
 
 announcement was to tlie friends of the Indians n surprise and 
 subject of deep regret. It was so because it was based upon 
 error. It implied an error so great that we wondered any 
 member of the Government, Provincial or Imperial, could have 
 fallen into it. The fact is, this question of title had never 
 been — no more than up to the present, owing to the persistent 
 opposition of the Seminary, it has been — before any court for 
 adjudication, therefore, on it there could have been no expense 
 borne by the Dominion, or any other Government. But how 
 could such a mistake be made ? And being made who must 
 be held responsible for it ? A full and satisfactory answer to 
 these queries may not now be given. It is clear, however, that 
 the Colonial Minister must have been prompted by some one in 
 Canada to make the re}'ly he sent us. And as the Secretary 
 of State for the Dominion Government would be the person on 
 whom the duty devolved to transmit the memorial, so the 
 natural inference was that he appended to it, or sent with it, 
 the statement which arrested its progress, and thus neutralized 
 the object of the memorialists. The Hon. Mr. Scott, being the 
 Secretary of State in Ottawa at the time, against him the charge 
 has rested, ^or can he be relieved of such in the absence of 
 most definite proof to the contrary. The Rev. Mr Scott Tells 
 us he "never heard of its reception by the Queen," and 
 " supposes it was not deemed worthy of presentation ;'' and 
 in that he says, " I sorrowfully concur." For " I know it 
 abounds with errors of the most serious character.'' There are 
 several thing's which others know as fully and satisfactorily as 
 Mr. Scott does, 1st, that the gentlemen who wrote the memorial 
 and the ministers who brought it before the union meeting of 
 the Congregational church for its adoption, knew what was 
 affirmed in it as well as Mr. Scott while they have as sacred a 
 regard for the claims of truth as he can have. 2. That if the 
 memorial had abounded in errors as he says it did, then such 
 would have been quite as obvious to the state secretaries as to 
 him, and, in refusing to accede to the prayer of the memorial- 
 ists, they would have supplied a reason having its foundation 
 
32 
 
 on truth, and not one without a particle of such, as was that 
 they sent us. Here we see Mr. Scott is no more successful in 
 propping up this branch of his subject than of the others I have 
 previously disposed of. 
 
 JOHN BORLAND. 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 THE REVIEWER REVIEWED — MR. SCOTT's INDICTMENT CONSID- 
 ERED AND ITS CHARGES MET — A SUGGESTION FOR SETTLING 
 THE OKA QUESTION OFFERED. 
 
 Dear Brethren, — Mr. Scott having written a review of 
 my former letters on the Oka question, I am led to add another 
 in review of his. Not to weary attention on the subject, I will 
 be as brief as my sense of duty in the case will admit. 
 
 According to Mr. Scott, I have only hitherto glanced 
 obliquely at his report ; and, as a consequence, " its main propo- 
 sitions remain unanswered." Well, others beyond either of us 
 will exercise a judgment here, and on such I am quite willing to 
 to rest the case between us. One consolation I have at any rate to 
 fallback upon, which is, that should the members of the Methodist 
 Church and the public generally, agree with my opponent in 
 his opinion, they certainly will not say that Mr. Scott has him- 
 self left any of his propositions, main or otherwise, intact ; for* 
 beyond a question, the quotations from his postscript supplied 
 by me in a former letter, have quite demolished every one of 
 them. He may have the glory of this achievement for aught I 
 care. I shall be satisfied with the praise of having merely 
 pointed to the fact. 
 
 Mr. Scott is considerate enough to say that he does not ac- 
 cuse me " of wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting any 
 body." No ; but having done so such he says is owing to my 
 " mental constitution and moral prejudices." And yet, as he 
 proceeds in his review he " repeats the charge," and even 
 strengthens it with the following words : " The recital as given, 
 or rather repeated by Mr. Borland, is a shameful misrepresenta- 
 tion of facts, evidently made for a party purpose." Under 
 
34 
 
 such an allegation, having any regard for my character, I cer- 
 tainly should not bo content to lie ; especially having, as I am 
 glad to say I have, abundant material for repelling it. 
 
 The indictment of mis-stating and misrepresenting facts 
 which Mr. Scott lays against me, contains several ccints, which 
 I will take up in their order : 
 
 (1) That I have not quoted M. Dapin with sufficient ful- 
 ness, so as to make his whole argument as clear as Mr. Scott 
 thinks it should be made. This is the substance of a long 
 paragraph in my opponent's letter. But here, let me remark, 
 M. Dupin was the Seminary's lawyer, and employed by them 
 to neutralize the effect of their failure in the Fleming appeal 
 case, on the English government. In the greater part of Mr. 
 Dupin's pleading, I, no more than the English law-officers, as 
 expre3sed by them subsequently, have no concurrence. In 
 some one or two things I agree with him fully, especially the 
 one to which my quotation — only partially supplied by Mr. 
 Scott — refers, viz., " That the Associates, as a society, was com- 
 posed of many individuals, priests as well as laymen, for the 
 conversion of the Indians of New France." And that the royal 
 assent was given to the concession of their rights to the Semi- 
 nary, " for the promotion and in consideration of the conversion 
 of the Indians in New France, the whole was consecrated to 
 this work ; and even in case of excess or increase of revenue, 
 such excess or increase was to be employed in like manner." 
 Now, did not M. Dupin use these words ? Is he wrongly 
 quoted here ? Mr. Scott will not say he is. What, if other 
 objects are stated by M. Dupin, which serve to show that a 
 settlement of French emigrants also was contemplated with the 
 above, is not the fact plain for any one to see that the interests 
 of the Indians was a leading consideration in the grants ? 
 
 (2) The second count is a misleading statement concerning 
 the articles of capitulation, by saying the 35th Art. *' was first 
 reserved for the King's consent and then subsequently dis- 
 allowed." This statement, Mr. Scott says, " is simply the out- 
 pome of a fertile imaginjitign/' for the 3oth Art., he avers, " wa^ 
 
 I 
 
35 
 
 neither reserved " nor " disallowed," but was " granted." Here 
 a number of questions, pointing to an opposite conclusion, 
 might be put. I will select a few of such. How was it, I ask, 
 with the idea that the article was granted, that we have the 
 following in the preamble of the Act of 1840 : " A.nd it had 
 been contended that all and every of the said fiefs and seigni- 
 ories became, by the conquest of this province by the British 
 arras, vested, and still remains vested, in the Crown ?" How 
 was it, if the 35th Art. was granted, that in 1819, the Duke of 
 Richmond, and in 1834, Lord Aylmer, as Governors- General 
 of Canada, made a demand on the St. Sulpicians to surrender 
 their properties to the government ? If Mr. Scott wishes fur- 
 ther information on these points, let him apply to the Hon. Ex- 
 Judge Badgley, the reputed author of the memorial from the 
 inhabitants of Montreal to the Home Government, against 
 granting the Charter and Titles to the Seminary, which are 
 found in the Act of 1840. He may obtain from the Ex-Judge 
 much valuable information on this whole matter. It is true it 
 would be greatly damaging to the cause of his clients, the 
 Seminary, and would look in strange contrast to Mr. Badgley 's 
 opinion lately given the government. Yet, perhaps, Mr. Badg- 
 ley would explain why he said the thing was black then, and 
 that it is white now. There are strange things to be met with 
 as we journey along ; and the conduct of jMr. Badgley and Mr. 
 Scott, in this Seminary afFa'r, is among such. 
 
 But I am not done with asking questions here. If the Soth 
 Art. was granted, as Mr. Sjott assures us it was, and with such, a 
 declaration was made of the absolute ownership of the Semi- 
 nary in their estates, how was it that the law-officers of the 
 Crown, viz., Sir C. Robinson, Ad.-Gen., Sir Y. Gibbs, Att.-Gen., 
 and Mr, Plumer, Sol.-Gen., in 1811, when, on one of those 
 occasions of fierce controversy between the Seminary and the 
 Government on the subject, the case was referred to them for 
 an opinion, they declared, *' That the Sulpicians in Canada had 
 not a valid title to the lands transferred to them by the Com- 
 munity of Paris ?" And was it not in this view of the question 
 
36 
 
 that Judge Sewell acted, and through which the Seminary 
 failed in their important case with Fleming? 
 
 But just one word more. Let us consult M. Garneau, the 
 French historian of Canada, and hear what he says on the subject. 
 From him we learn, see vol. IL, p. 70 : " By this celebrated 
 Act, Sept. 8, 1760, Canada passed finally under British domi- 
 nation. Free exercise of the Catholic religion was guaranteed 
 to its people. Certain specified ecclesiastical brotherhoods, and 
 all communities of rdigicuscs, were secured in the possession of 
 their goods, constitutions and privileges ; but the like advan- 
 tages were refused (or delayed) to the Jesuits, Franciscans 
 (Recollets), and Sulpicians, until the King should be consulted 
 on the subject." He further remarks, see vol. IF., p. 94 : 
 ** With respect to the estates of the religious communities, the 
 Lords of the Treasury wrote to Receiver- General Mills, as part 
 of their Instructions for the year 1765 ; ' Seeing that the lands 
 of these societies, particularly those of the Jesuits, were being 
 united to the crown domains, you are to strive, by means of an 
 arrangement with the parties interested in them, to enter into 
 possession thereof in the name of His Majesty. . . And you 
 are to see that the estates in question are not transferred, and 
 so be lost to the Crown, by sequestration or alienation.' " 
 
 In the noted case of Fleming vs. the Seminary. Mr. (subse- 
 quently Sir James) Stuart, Mr. Fleming's lawyer, refers to this 
 subject in his pleadings before the Court in the following way : 
 " Between the period of the capitulation and the Act of 1774, 
 the curates were not entitled to any legal right which now 
 belongs to them. liut that Act not only secured to them the 
 free exercise of their religion, but also to the clergy the enjoy- 
 ment of their accustomed dues and rights. With respect to 
 the Seminary of Montreal, their exists nothing by which it is 
 discriminated from other bodies — on the contrary, by the 32nd 
 Art. of the capitulation, they are preserved in their constitutions 
 and privileges ; but in the very next article, when it is asked 
 that the preceding article shall likewise be executed with regard 
 to the priests of St. Sulpice, at Montreal, the answer is rcfmed, 
 
37 
 
 till the King" 8 pleamrc he hwirn. Nor was it necessary or con- 
 sistent that the same liberality should be extended to the 
 Seminary at Montreal. It was inconsistent with the King's 
 supremacy and the public law of the land, and therefore it was 
 extinguished immediately at the conquest." This celebrated 
 trial tested in the fullest sense the Seminary's pretensions, 
 whether from the rejected article or from any other plea. Mr. 
 Scott nibbles at the judgment pronounced by Judge Sewell 
 against the Seminary, and says: " The judgment so much relied 
 on was never confirmed by any English court, and was neither 
 approved nor acted on by the British government." But would 
 such have been necessary so far as Fleming and the Seminary 
 were concerned f One thing is certain, the Seminary lost the 
 case ; and whoever might subsequently confront Fleming in 
 the quality of Seignior, the Seminary had no right to do so. 
 Nor is Mr, Scott correct in saying the judgment was never 
 confirmed by any English court, for, it was because of the 
 Seminary's carrying it before them, backed by the legal opinion 
 of Mr. Dupin, that the judgment by the law-officers, as given 
 above, was elicited. 
 
 (3) The next count worthy of notice is, that I have falsified 
 my reference to the North American Act in such a manner 
 that Mr. Scott feels justified in using the following language : 
 " The whole story as recited is mere fiction — it is a gross mis- 
 representation. There was no Act passed in 1774, called the 
 North American Act," kc, &c., &c. From so grave a charge 
 I turn to the Pictorial History of England, vol. I., of the reign 
 of George TIL, and pp. 1(34-5, 1 read, under the heading, 1774, 
 *' A bill was brought into the House of Lords, ' For making 
 more effectual provision for the government of the Province of 
 Quebec, in North America.' The principal objects of this bill 
 were to ascertain tlie limits of the province . . . and to 
 secure to the Roman Catholic clergy, except the Regulars (or 
 members of the religious orders), the legal enjoyment of their 
 lands and of the tithes in their own communities, and from 
 all who professed the Roman Catholic religion. The bill 
 
38 - 
 
 passed through the Lords with little or no observation ; but 
 when it came down to the Commons it met with a very differ- 
 nt reception, and gave rise to debates as interesting as any 
 that had taken place during the session." 
 
 If the rf;ader will turn his eyes back to the part of this 
 letter where I have quoted Sir James Stuart's address in be- 
 half of his client Fleming, he will see that Sir James refers 
 to this very Act of 1774, in the following words : " Between 
 the period of the capitulation and the Act of 1774, the curates 
 were not entitled to any legal right which now belongs to 
 them." And again, " Nor was it necessary or consistent that 
 the same liberality should be extended to the Seminary at 
 Montreal. It was inconsistent with the King's supremacy and 
 the public law of the land, and therefore it was extinguished 
 immediately on the conquest." And now, am I not entitled 
 to ask, at whose door, Mr. Scott's or mine, lies the clearly 
 sustained charge of misrepresentation ? I think it would ^ _ 
 well for Mr. Scott to look over, with becoming though tful- 
 ness, the ninth article of the decalogue. 
 
 (4) The fourth count is, that I used the words, " at the 
 instance of the Governor of this Province for the time being," 
 whereas, Mr. Scott says, " there is no such sentence in the 
 Act." Mr. Scott is right here and I am wrong. But what 
 has he gained for his clients, notwithstanding this discovery 
 of my error ? Through my error it was as though the Gov- 
 ernor might originate the appropriatica, which is not the 
 case. It is this — and Mr. Scott must admit my correctness 
 here — that beyond the objects explicitly stated in the Act of 
 1840, the Seminary has no power to appropriate one farllnLg 
 of the revenue from the estates they hold, without the con- 
 sent and approval of the Governor of the Province ! And 
 yet Mr. Scott and others with him, in the face of this fact 
 and others equally pertinent, will contend for absolute owner- 
 ship on the part of the Seminary in the estates they hold. 
 Now, I venture to say that no school boy who, because of his 
 stupidity, has been made to stand at the foot of his class. 
 
39 
 
 crowned with a fool's cap, could be found to endorse the state- 
 ment with the fact here given before him. 
 
 I am charged with inconsistency because, while now op- 
 posing a removal of the Indians from Oka, I, in 1875, advo- 
 cated such, and actu- 'ly took steps to carry it out. That I did 
 so in 1875, is true ; and here is my explanation. I was then 
 acting with a committee in Montreal. With that committee 
 I saw no probability of an end being reached of the annoying 
 and vexatious cruelties of the Seminary towards these Indians. 
 The whole thing was occasioning immense labor, anxiety and 
 expense. Mr. Maclaren always gave us his professional ser- 
 vices freely, but other lawyers had to be feed, and such, with 
 other forms of expenditure, were constant and oppressive. 
 The principal weight of all this I had to bear. Throughout 
 a greater part of the cities and towns of Ontario and Quebec 
 I had to travel for funds to meet oft and pressing needs. And 
 now, for the first time, the Indians bad become willing to leave 
 Oka for some place of rest and peace. The government offered 
 to get us lands in any part of Ontario we should fix upon — for 
 the Indians declared they would not, if they left Oka, settle in 
 any part of the province of Quebec. With 3Ir. Parent and the 
 two Chiefs, I went up the Mattawa region, made a choice of 
 lands, returned and made a report to the government, of our 
 selection. The government paid the expenses of our journey, 
 but backed down in the agreement. Instead of getting, or 
 trying to get us any land in Ontario, they made the Indians 
 an offer of such in a far northerly region in the province of 
 Quebec. This, the Indians positively and peremptorily refused. 
 They said to go to such a cold, rocky, barren region, meant 
 death. And if such was really the object the government had 
 in view concerning them, they preferred meeting it at Oka than 
 in the place offered them. As never before, so never since 
 that time have the Indians desired to remove from Oka ; and 
 believing as I do in their right to a place on, and as well 
 means of subsistence from the Lake of Two Mountains* lands, 
 J maintain that their feelings uud rights should be respected. 
 
40 
 
 And now, not to pursue this discussion any further, I will 
 venture a suggestion to all whom it may concern, as to the best 
 way in my opinion for eJS'ecting a settlement of this perplexing 
 question. It is, that a suitable reserve of unappropriated lands 
 on the Seigniory of the Luke of Two Mountains, be set off 
 for these Indians. Let this reserve be placed in the keeping, 
 or under the supervision and care of the Indian department of 
 the government. Let the Seminary be required to pay annually 
 to the government such a sum of money as may be necessary 
 to put the Indians in a proper way of doing for themselves. 
 These annual payments to continue for such a period of years 
 as may be required to give the Indians a fair starting on this 
 reserve. 
 
 That the interests of the ludians was a leading and influ- 
 ential plea in obtaining these lands, none will question who 
 has paid any attention to the documentary evidence that bears 
 on this point. And yet no sane mind would think of disturb- 
 ing those, other than the Indians, who in good faith have 
 been led to settle on these Seignories. Nor is such at all neces- 
 sary, inasmuch as there is quite enough yet of unappropriated 
 lands to meet the wants of all. The Seminary ought to 
 accept my proposition to solve this long pending difficulty 
 with readiness, and the government should take it up with 
 determinate earnestness. The friends of the Indians, I doubt not, 
 would gladly fall in with this arrangement, and co-operate 
 in any consistent way to make the settlement a success. 
 
 '. JOHN BORLAND.