IMAGE EVALUATION TEST lARGET (MT.3) 1.0 I.I s ^ Ilia S Hi. 120 L25 1 1.4 1.8 1.6 V] <^ /] A "c?^! f^- Wi m u/^,. Fhotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. HSfO (716) 872-4503 :\ \ "^h .V ?i? O^ su^ '^ PU^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collectioo de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ^ I QP7 Technical and Biblioqraphic Notas/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attampted to obtain tha bast original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bikliogr&phicaliy unique, which may alter any '.ib«c Bibliothiqua Lea imagaa aulvantaa ont M reproduites avec le plua grand soin. compte tenu de la condition st de la nettetA de l'exemplaire fWmi, at en conformity avec las conditions du contrat de filmage. Lea exemplaires orlgfnaux dont la couverture en papior est imprimie sont filmis en commencant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par ta dernlAre pege qui comporte une empreintc d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selcn le caji. Toua les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commencant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifJe "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 4tre film^s A des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque lo document est trop grand oour itre reproduit en un seul clich4, il est film* A partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche h droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'imeges nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m4thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7r /^rtJ- C'^^"-' ^^ >t ""( f Mr. Barron's Speech on the Jesuit Estates Act. ( Mr. Barron. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could content myself with simply giving nn iifftnnative vote to the auieudment of my houfjrable friend from Muskokn (Mr. O'Biien) ; but, Sir, that has become im- possible. Fortunately or unfortunately, I do not know which, my name has been more or less intimately associated with the sudject-matter of the hon. gentle- man's amendment ever since the begin- ning of this session, and I feel compelled to supplement the vote that I shall. give with some explanation, I do that, Sir, even th(jugh my duty is a most unpleasr, one and a most painful one indeeu, esi)ecially so when I remember and am cnly for the time being I hope — from few or many, I dcm't say which, of the hon. gentlemen around me with whom I have been in such hapi)y accord ever since I have had the honor of a seat in this House. Still more especi- ally is it painful to me, Mr. Speaker, to speak as 1 do and to vote as I do, when I am conscious of the fact that lam separ- ating myself from the hon. gentleman on this side of the House who leadb me and who leads us, and for whom I, in com- mon with hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as well as with many h(m. gentlemen on that side of the House, have feelings not only of respect but of the deepest possible affection. But, Sir, even under those circumstiinces I enjoy the cimifort which is that I know that hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House will at least give me credit for acting from sincere and honest c(mvic- tions. Believing that I am in the right, I hope hon. gentlemen will give me their sytiipathetic attentit)n while I speiik to the amendment of the hon. member for Muskoka. I may be permitted in passing to make a few references to the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka, after which I will come to the speech of the hon. member for Linc(;^n (Mr. Rykeit), I do not refer so much to the remarks that the hon. gentleman trom Muskoka made this afternoon as I do to his re- marks of a day or two ago upon the occasion when he gave notice *.o this House of his intention to introduce the amendment which he has placed, Mr. Speaker, in your hands to-day. I do not wish to be understood even inside or out- side of the House as complaining at all of the course of the hon. member for Mus- koka. It has been suggested to me that th;it hon. gentleman's course was in fact forestalling me and taking from me that course which I intended to pursue; but, Sir, I can tell this House that I was gratified beyond measure when the hon. gentleman rose in his seat a day or two ago and announced his intention of doing what he has done to-day. I recognize, and no one in this House can recognize more than I, now grave and serious this question is, not only in the present, but grave and serious in its consequences in future, and I would be foolish indeed if I presumed to think that 1 could give the question thv, weight and the importance of other hon. gentlemen m this House, I, who am comparatively young and especi- ally so in com|)arison with the hon. member for Muskokg,. I recognisse. Sir, that someone older in years, older in ex- perience and older in positifni than I am should have taken this matter up, and I, therefore, say again, and I hope hon. gentlemen will believe me, that I was plc;iscd and gratified when the hon. gentleman from Muskoka notified the Hou8e a (lay or two dgo of his intention to niovu liiH amendment. I do not coni- jtlaiii even of his words when he spoke, l»iit I may be permitted to make some refuieiioe so as to exi)lain away the in- f the udiabitantS of Canada; and lo «ive precise and effectual orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects might pro- fess the worship of their religion accorfTintr to the rites of the Romish Church, ah kau AH THK l,AWa OF GREAT BRITAIN I'K"- MITTJClJ." T^ want to emphasize these last words, "as FAR AK THE LAWS OF (iREAT BRITAIN I'KRMiTTEu," because at the time of the inakmg of that Treaty of Paris this Statute of LJiZiiboth was in force, so that the treaty did not negative the existence of that statute in this country, but on the contrary perpetuated it. Now, the hon. member for Lincoln said that there was a distinct- ion between His Holiness the Poi)e as a foreign potentate, and as the head of the church. I grant you that; but does any- one mean t^^ say that the Statute of Eliza- beih 18 iKjt directed, as all the statutes of Elizabeth were, to His Holiness the Pope? No one can argue t.) the contrary, if he is possessed of the least atom of historical knowledge. Every one of the penal Stat- utes of Elizabeth were pointedly directed to his Holiness the Pope, and, therefore, the Treaty of Paris did not discontinue the Statute of Elizabeth or prevent its application to this country. If we want any further legislative authority, let us look at the Quebec Act of 1774, the 5th section of which reads as follows: "And for the more perfect se^ arity and ease of the minds of the inhabitants of the said Province, it is hereby declared that His Majesty s subjects professing the re- ligion of the Church of Rome at and in the said Province of Quebec may have, h»Jd and enjoy the free exercise of the reliKion of the Church of Rome, subject to the Kings snpremacy, declared and estab- lished by an Act, made in tho hnst year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth over all the dominions and countries which then did or hereafter should belong to the Imperial Crown of the realm, and that the clergy of the said church may hold, receive and enjoy their aocu8t<)med dues and rights with respect to such persons only as shall profess the said religion There W3 have, first of all, the Statute of 1 Elizabeth positively, in a legislative way, disapproving ui the Pope in any way ex- ercising a jurisdiction; then we have the Treaty of Paris coining after that, not preventing tho operation of that Statute; I • and then we have the Quebec Act of 1774, Bpecifilly ])ori)etuatiiig that Statute in the Provinoo of Quebec. But let me go still further, Sir, let me refer to the opinion of a great judgo to shtm that what I say is correct. Mr. Justice Smith, in the Ciisc of Corse V, Corse, reported in the Lower Canada reports, page 314, said: "Ah soon as Canada ceased to belong to France, the public law of France ceased to exist, and the public law of England came in." Now, it may be said that my con;jtruc- tion of the statute is a forced one, is not a fair one, is not consistent with the time in which we are living, in 1889, when it was passed in 1554; but I will road from an authority whose name is a household word, well known to every gentleman in this House; I refer to Mr. Todd, who was cited by the hon. member for Lincoln in his attempts to demonstrate the truth of some of his statements. He says in his most recer^t work : "The Statute of 1 Elizabeth, chapter 1, known as the Act of Supremacy, declares that no foreign prince, person, prelate, or notcntate. spiritual or temporal, shall henceforth use, enjoy or exercise any power, jurisdiction -" Now, I stop at this word "jurisdictiop." Sir, I want to ask hon. members of this House, how it is possible, if that con- struction be a correct construction of the Statute of Elizabeth, and I challenge as- sertion to the contrary, to contend that tb»it construction is not infringed upon by the Act passed in the Province of Quebec last session? 4t the very least in it the Pope is exercising the jurisdiction of dis- tributing moneys, if nothing else, which I say is a violation of the Statute according to the universal construction thereof. Mr. Todd goes on to say : "—or authority within the realm, or with- in any part of the Queen's dominions ; and that all such power or authority hereto- fore exercised shall be forever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this realm. This declaration remains in force to the present day, and it is the statutory warrant for the supremacy of the Crown, in all matters and causes civil or ecclesi- astical, throughout the British Empire, as well as for the renunciation of the papal claim.s tlif.reln." Now, it has been said in this Hou.so, and has been written to the j)ress by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) that there is a distinction between the ]^)pe in his spiritual cai)acity as the head of the church and the way he has been br«)nght into this Statute; but hero we have the opinion of Mr. Todd that his right to exorcise papal claims in this country ought not to and does not exist. Hut, Sir, I shall cite earlier authorities. I understand that some of the gentlemen who are oppo.^ied to this resolution rely upon the authority of Lord Thurlow. Now, I ask the attentitm of this House for a few minutes until I read his opinion regarding the statute ; "By the Ist of Elizabeth, I take it that there is no reason whatever, why tife Koman Catholic religion should not have been exercised in this country as well as in that: confining it entirely to that Act, I know no reason to the contrary ♦ * « for the language of the Act is only this, that no foreigner whatever should HAVE ANY JURISWCTION, POWER Oil AUTH- ORITY WITHIN THE REALM." Then I will refer to the language of the celebrated Vv'edderburn : 'I can see, by the article of this bill, no more than a toleration. The toleration, such as it is, is subject to the King's s. "emacy, as declared and established by the Act of the 1st of Queen Elizabeth. Whatever necessity there be for the establishment of eccleciastical persons, it is certain they can derive no authority from the See of Rome, without directly otfending against this Act." Then it may be argued that this Statute is not in force now, by reason of some provincial or federal legislation whJ'^h pre- vents its applicfcion in this country. No one who makes that contention could have read the British North Ameiica Act, because Imperial legislation which was in force at the time of Confederation could not since be repealed or destroyed by any Dominion or Provincial legisla- tion. The 129th section of the British North America Act reads as follows : — " Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in force in Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick at the Union, and all courts of civil and criminal juris- diction, and a,ll legal commissions, powers anti authorities, and all ouicers, judicial, nilininistrativo and mIniHtf.rial, exi.stiiiK therein nt the Union, sliali continue in Ontario, Qiieheo. Nova Seotia and New Hrnnswic'li respectively, as if tlie TJnion luui not l)een made; xubjoct nevertlieioHs (KXt-JiPr WITH HKSPKCT TO 8U0H AS AllK j;na( rici) kv ou kxist undkh Aith ok iuk PaHLIAMKNT ok (JuKAT lilUTAIN OR (JK THK PaHMAMKNT OK THE UNlTrOT) KtXCf- JKJM OP (iRKAT BHITATN ANT) IKKKAND) to be repealed, abolished or altered bv the Parlianiont of Canada, of by t he Legislature of the respective I'rovinces according to the authority of tho Parliament or of the JiCKislature unden^this Act." Even if there had boen legislation in any way do'iractinj^r from the Statute lat Elizabeth, which was undnubteply in f(n-co at tho time of Confyduiaf ion, no legislation, either in thia Hduso or in tho l^ri)vince of Quebec, could iu any way legally detract, from or diminish the extent of the ai)j)licat!nn of that stitute. I think I have shown conclusively wli.it is now the statute law of tlieland, namely, that result- ing f!'(,m the legislative enactments of lat lOiiaibeth. But I maintain that the com- mon law, altogether apart from tiie Stat- ute, is such as toi)reveiit the iinr(>duction of His Holiness the P(»i)o into this legis- lation. Some of us can lecoKect tJie fact, I only from my reading, that, jn-iiu- to to 1S50, the Pope attemjited to divide England into dillerent dioceses or divi- sions, ' 'it a Statute was j»assed in 1850 to preveuu him doing so. This Statute was the EcclesiasticaVs Act of that year. Now I want to refer to Mr. Todd again, who says, on T)age 313, that that Statute ])a8s- ed in 1850 declaring that the Pope had no power as a foreign potentnte, either in his individual capacity as head of the church or as a fr>reign potentate, to divide Eng- land into dioceses, had always been the common law of England. Mr. Todd says : "The Ecclesiastical Titles Act was in substance a declaration of the common law. which was affirmed before the Refor- mation, and ratified by Parliament some five hujidred ^ears ago." If it was always the common law of the land, Sir, that the Pope C(3uld not divide J]ngland into dioceses, surely it must have been the common law of the land that he had not the right to distribute money, and that money the money of the state. I would like to know which is tho most im- portfint— dividing a country into ditt'erent parcels or ditjcoaes with a view of placing church authorities over each, or distribut- ing certain moneys. If it waa tho com- mon law of the land that His Holiness tho P(jpe could not divide England into dio- ceses, it must have been also the conumm law that ho could not distribute moneys in the way l)rovided by the Statute aim(;d at by tho amendment now before the chair. That conmion law of England became the com- mon law of Canada. On this pomt Sir Richard West gives his opinion, on the 20th June, 1720, (see Chaliner'a Oohjnial ()j)inionp, [)age 510) : "The common law of Enarland is the common law of the plantations, and all Statutes in alUrmance of tlie common law passed in Phi^land, antecedent to the set- tlement of any colony, are in force in that colony unless tliere is some private act to the contrary, though no statutes, made since these settlements, are there in force, unless the colonies are particularly n)en- tioned." Mil. Mills (Both well). That is a set- tlement,, not a conciueat. Mr. Barron. No, but it matters not. I maintain on that authority that the com- mon law of England was such at that time that no distribution of moneys could be made by the Poj>e in England, and tiiat common law became j)art and parcel of the conmion law of tnis country. Some reference has been made to correspond- ence from officera of the Crown in Er.g- land, or others in high authority, regard- ing the right of His Holiness the Pope to exercise any jurisdiction in thia country. I refer, in support of my view, to the royal instructions to the Duke of Rich- mond, on his appointment in 1818 as Cvernor in Chief of Upper and Lower Canada, with reference to the inhabibints of Lower Canatla : "That it is a toleration of the free exer- cise of the relio;ion of the Church of Rome only to which they are entitled, but not to the powers and privileges of it as an established church ' • • It is our will and pleasure that all appeals to a coriespondence with any foreign ecclesi- astical jurisdicLiuu of wJiaL nature or kind soever be absolutely forbidden under very severe penalties." 6 Then as to the royal supremacy, which cannot exist if this statute is to become law, I will refer also to Mr. Todd, who says at page iUM: — "The source of the authority of the Crown in eccleHJaHtical mattei-s and of its jurisdiction in the last resort all over ecclesiastical causes is to be found in the doctrine of the royal supremacy. This doctrine is a fundamental principle of the British constitution. It was authoritative- Iv asserted by Parliament at the era of the lleformatlon, and it is interwoven with the very essence of the monarchy itself." Further on he says : "While by previous enactment ecclesias- tical supremacy had been conferred uDon the Crown, as a perpetual protest against the assumptions, by any foreign priest or potentate, of a right to exercise coercive power or pre-eminent durisdlction of British subiects." Now I think I have fairly shown that, at all events, the Statute law ia against the introduction of the Pope intt) any matters in this country in the way ihis St'vtute provides. I will refer now to what I believe to be t'le objectionable clauses, and I will ask how it is possible for anyone not to admit, in the face of the Statute, that these clauses to which I re- fer certainly make this law an infringe- ment of the law as it is defined by the Statute of Elizabeth, In reply tice Mr. Mercier ap])ears to acknowledge all that the Pope thr;)ugh his Secretary demands. He says: "That the amount of the compensation nxed shall remain in the possessioii of the Government of the Province as a special deposit until the Pope has ratified the said settlement and made known his wishes respecting the distribution of such amount in this country." Now, tlie letters containing these sen- tences are a preamble to this St^atute. They are referred to by a section of this Statute and are made jiart and parcel of the law of Quebec— a British Province— and that law is that nothing is to be done until the Pope has ratified the settlement and made known his wishes as to the dis- tribution of the propertv. There is an admission on the part ot Premier of a British Province that a foreign potentate -for such I claim he is — has the power to ratify British legislation. If he has the power to ratify it, he has the power Ut nullify it, and that is a power which no one, whether he be the head of a church or not, should possess. Then the Statute goes on, in order to trive it a sort of mer ifnririna offtinf «-r> «-..1U «.V.^,,*. i.;j.-,t; .,...., ... ,^tin. auKJi^i, IcaLluULlOU, In the very front of the Statute, it spovks f the Holy !: is tanta- le Popo ttt li. In aii- ■eplying to to any one of the Pro- wLich be- before the i to whom PutherH of iccordance her place-', ir8 of the >wn name ich a mail- srty to the perty aa it ntly, that ; no condi- ed in the II of such iner affect or Hp])ear8 e thr;»ugh ■s: pensation lion of tlie a special d the said lis wishes ;h amount liese aen- Stntute. on of tliia parcel of fovince — 3 be done et dement o the di8- ere is an imier of a potentate l)()werto e has the power Ut which no a church e Statute t of mer stitution. it specks of restitution being necossiry to bo m ide to tho.Iosint Society. Wluit is rostitutioji? You cannot rostoro anything t(j a person who was not ut one time or other entitled to it, or to scu.ie ono who is entitled to claim it on his bidialf. I contend thiit the Jesuit tSociofcy which was incorporated in 1887 has nothing whatever to do with the original Jesuit Society. Suppose asociuty iri incorporated by charter in tiiis Parlia- inent, and fur some reason or other it bo- cnn'os extinct, rnd fifty years afterwards another sitciety u formed under the same name; can anyone siiy, will any one ntgue that the society 30 formed can have any cliiim to the estates of the former society which has beccmio extinct'/ Certainly not; and the same state of thingsi exists here, and there can be no principle wiiatever of iVi.'jtit'ition involved. Sir, to contend for the affirmative is to contend, not for the principle, but for the very irony of resti- tution. I Hud thiih the Jesuit Society was incorporated in the year 1(»78 in France. I shall not trouble the House by reading at length tho dip- loma or letters patent incorporating that society, but, with your consent and the consent of the House, I shall ask permis- sion to hand it in. Sir. JOHN A. MACDONALD. No. Somehon. MEMBERS. Read. Mr. BARR()N. On the 2nd August, 1701, that Society was dissolved in Fiance, and, if the house is determined to ha\e lengthy words read, T shall read the decrees of dissolution, contenting myself with the bald statement that the Society was incor- porated as I have said. The Society was dissolved by the self-same Parliament which originally incorjjorated it, and the declaration of the King of France at Ver- sailles was: "Moreover, we ordain, that during one year from the date of the enrolment hereul, nothing shall be ordered, either definitely or provisionally, upon what may relate to the said institutes, constitutions and estab- lishments of the houses of the said Society, unless we shall otherwise so ordain." Then on the 6th August 1761, by another sentence, the Parliament of France, with reference to the re{)ort to them niade of the doctrine of the Jesuits, inado the fol- lowing j)rovisi" during their Vmt:lrSl^;e;s.•• "' ^"•'^^'^^'"»« "Subject, nevertheless to this- Th/.f fi,« respite confair.ed i„ tl... sal.l eV ers pate ? •shall take place only to the first 0^,' next, upon which day the provisi .mV I, cree of Lhe court of the sixth AuS if shall be executed 'ipso jure,\a,Hl afsnfv '. out tJjat tne necessary proVcn-d, St" en- able the court to rencler judKmeuron the ;ap^>el connne d'abus,' ii'srSd l.v m Majesty's Attorney GemS" prove e ecut ,on 0/ the said 'appel con,mrd'abus^ And also subject to this: That th« public or private lectures oa theoloLv philosophy or the huiimnitie« he hi n^^.' Kiven by the priests or scholars in «1U ' towns or peaces within the jSicttu of the court, without ^distinction cam, ?/»?/ provisionally continued af rVhe expira touofthesaid respite, the whole uKw the pains contained in the nrovi^innni i cree of the sixth August last^"''' ^''■ Tluis I maintain tJiat the same Parlia- ment which brought the Jesuit Societv Hs H corporate society, into existence, W ^jecree dissolved the srjciety. Then wo hnd that His Holiness the Pone , the 20tii July 1773 dissolved the s'S^'iety by his celebrated brief JJaminns ac Redemptor I shall not ask the House to listen to the reading of that brief, which 18 not necessary for my purpose, \.nd in any event ,t is fa-niliar to'the .rs of most lionorable gentlemen in this House A year later, this society was suppressed In 17!U there aro Itoyal Instructions f,. the s.mie effect. The last I. sm * i IHOO, the present sodj^ea^u'^trcor' I-mte existence in 188^ so "" .£ ; thit the present society is n .t in anv way c..nnected «'ith the foriuor s oietv^ Hud the principle of rost.tuti.ui d IJ not' and cannot apply; this (iovernu.ent least, shmiM have returned the Bill a'uf Cer'":/'"'''"''^''^''''^--''"-^^^^^ wh ch T , 'f '"- ""?*^ "'''«'■«' ^'»^' 'me to wh'ch I referred a few niunients aj/o on he iioint of restitutioa. Even the biH ;.M'«;.f (Quebec, or souie Jthl'n ad m.tted that the Jesuits were n..- longer ," existence, and they, at the recpie. of tl Je^ui 8, made a claim to the pi'opc, ty hnd the following in a |.etition over the sigmitui-c. of .Joseph. Biihop of ( ,"1,^*^ r T T . S ' ^."f'J»t<''- "f Quebec, and ''• ;S. LarMgue, Bishop of M..ntreal • countrv, rheir natiir«l iv,, '^ m this Ro,„«„ C„t,hoUe"b1','C', o" t^^rS?j; '"- rpi ,, - r-- "-^ iiit^ uiucese. inen the very Act, >aolf ;„ T .. • 1 .^ '"'^ paicicular propertv an foil,, - */^ 9 f»ovcrnor- ' r i Wo hjlipjtT P"llHc, and N hihI pro. Crown, for "iKlit hore- iM'oiiit, and •'«■ df^cliircd <»f Hh" said . should ho provisiouH ncHons to lit uiod in I into cor- laiintiin 'fc ill any >r Society; I does* not iiinent, at Hill, aug- il in some he one to s ago, on vt-n the hinn, ad- lon^rer in ?it <»f tho icity. I over the Quebec, '»nc, aiui il : K'nt thai, ' in this I are t)ie L'ese. " lof-ating ikes no ^•ceasion iity, so on the ly prni- '. But fty was ! of the lit the long to Crcnvn lands; tacked ted, it f Btah-s tuat which IH nofc tho case, anu the | l^cUml gnx..rn.nent should not Juvo sanctioned that ini.Hstaton.ent of fact, h.it out of respect fo, history and • speciallv for the rui-iitatiun of the Hovereign, they Hhouldat lea-t have letMrned the Act to the (.overnn.ent of Quebec t<. have it amended m this particular. N^w in ^•>me pa.r.phlets isHue.l by gentlemen who HU|)p.,rt tii.j Jesuit Society, I find Tv^iss referred t<. as an authority on the hiw of nations. A gentleina!i wh;) writes a vorv aole argument in support of tho Jesuit tMus(N has quoted from this authority as lollows:-- -^ •*A victorious 1 .tion in aciuiring the sovereignty ,/,farto over a country, from «-lMch II has expell.d its adversny does no acpnre a..y other rights than those ^h ch bdonged to the expelled sovereign • and t(» those such as thev are, with a'l their limitations and modifications, ho succeeds by riyht of war." They also refer to De Vattell of the law of nations : "Th.> oon(iuoror who t/^kes a town or provn.ce from his enemy cannot justly aciuu-e over it any other rights th-vn «uch as belonged to the sovereign again v'.m, he has taken up arms. War an hon/,e.s Inm to p<,sses3 himself of what I .«longs t.. his enemy; if he deprives hin <'f the sovereignty of that town or pro- ' vmce, he acquires it such as it is, with all Its limitations and moditications. One sovereign makes war upon another sovereign, and not against un- armed citizens. The compierol- seizes mi hei.,ssessionsof the state,' the public pro- perty while private individuals are al- uwe ! to retain theirs. They suffer but "H irectly by the war; and the conquest «^dy sul,jects them to a new master " ^ow, 1 agree with every word of that Suppose the United States and C ?f t Britani were to go to war-and I th7r!k hon. gentlemen in this House on the both H des w<.uld have but very little doubt a to the result-It would not be said for one -.inent tlut Cr.at Britain obtained anv n.d ts vvhatsoever over private pro- -ty, but she would obtain just the same rights and no more and no loss tlun tho Ey •.'fjvo of the United S^tates possessed ov^. . uvato pro- p.,rty. Jow, at tho time of tl,v> conquest 1.18 pn.pevty did not vest in the Joiuitn at al., it had become extinguished, it had boc'.me vacmt pn.porty; thoref .re, whon It IS suid outside the Ifouse. .is it has been «aid inside, that for merit.u-ions reasons J'ocause the property was taken by a meth- od of coiihscati.n, it should be returned to tho Jesuit order. I say it was not taken by conhscatum, because at the time Mat Canada was c.,n(,uered by England this property was not the property (,f the .Jesdits but was the property of France, I (living bec.nie extinct. Wo find the op- omof Her Majesty's Att..rney (ieneral ,ro ,e^t"^ ' "° '" '■''-''"^ ^" ^^*« "As a derelict or vacant estate. His Majesty became vest- d in it by the dour- est of titles jf the ..., . f conquest alone «a8 not suthcient, v-at even upon the foot- ing ot tno proceedings in France and tho judicial Acts of the H..vengP tribunals of that country, the estates in this Province vv.,uldfallnatA,rallyioHi8 Majesty, and be subject to Fkis unlimited disposal, for by j those decisions it was established uiHm {good, legal andconstitutional grounds, chat I trom the natui'o ..f the first establishment or admission of the Society into France being conditional, temporary and proba- tional, they wcr^ at all times liable tr expulsion, and having never complied vvitJi, but rejected the terms of their ad- mission, they were not even entitled to the name of a society, therefore, they weie stnpt of their proj.erty and possessi.n.s, which they were ordered to ,,uic upon ten days notice after having been compelled to give m a full statement of al! they had with several title deeds, and documents or proofs in support of it. Secjuestrators or guarui-ms were appointed to the m luage- ment<,f their estates, and in course of tiuie and with a regularity proportioned .o their importance, provlsi.m was nade for the apphcat on of them in the various ways that law, reason, justice and nolicy dictated; and all this was done at the suit of the Crown. ■ - 1 10 Now, to show further that at the time of the coii«iuost tliis was vacant propeivy, I refer to Marriott's opinion, 12th May, 1765. He says: "From all these premises, it seems con- clusive that the titles of the st)ciety passed together with the dominion ceded to Great Britain (in which dominions those possessions were situated) attended with no better qualifications than those titles, had by the laws and cousdtutiim of tlie realm of France, jjrevious to the concjueht and ceosicm of those countiies." I mention that this QueLec Act is object- ionable in many important particulars and IS also objectionable in declaring thatthose estates were confiscated by the British Crown, I say such was not the fact, and is not borne out by the history of the es- t;- tes. This property has always been treat- ed as having escheated to the crown, not as having been confiscated by reason of the conquest, and those who argue different- ly, argue outside the facts, with the ob- ject, no doubt, to excite the sytni)athy humanity always entertains towards those whose private rights have been prejudiced or affected. I find Lord Goderich on 7th July, 1831, spoke to this effect: "His Majesty's Governfnent do not deny that the Jesuit's estates were, on the dissolution^ of that order, appropriated to the education of the people, and readily admit that the revenue which may result from that property, .hould be regarded as inviolably and exclusively applicable to that object." And the statute of William IV, chapter 41, states to the same effect as follows: — "And it is hereby enacted by the author- ity of the same, that from and after the jiassing of this Act, all moneys arising out of the estates of the late order of Jesuits which now are in or may hereafter come into the hands of the Receiver General of this Province shall be placed in a separate chest in the vaults wherein the publio moneys of the Province are kept, and shall be applied to the purposes of edu- cation exclusively, in a manner provided by this Act, or by any Act or Acts which may hereafter be passed by the Provincial Legislature in that behalf" and nc, other- wise." j Then we have the petition of the b'shops, I to which I have already refer^-ed. Does anyone mean to say tliat if the Province became owners of this property by reason of confiscation, the bishops would" say the Jesuits were no longer entitled to it, as they did say in their petition? It is quite clear, therefore, that the statute is incor- rect in that particular when it atates that the property was ac ^uired by confiscation. Then there is another point to which I de- sue to refer, and it is one wliich has not yet been touched up(m, and it is this: It is the case that two or mr)re of the jiro- perties were acquired by the Jesuits, not from the King of France and not bv grants of the Parliament of France, but fnnn pri- vate indivudals. I do not think anyone will deny that within strict law, and I may say I a.ji speaking from a legal standpoint altogether, and 1 do not desire t(j go into the merits or demerits of the Jesuit claim, but to sj.eak of the (juestion from a legal standpoint only— no one, I think, vvill deny tliat it is good and proper law that when property is given to a corpi .ration (jr society or body of men or to one or more men upon a certain specific trust, the very moment that the trust is no lon- ger capable of perfonmance from that nioment the proper.'^^y re.erts to the heirs of the party from which the property or- iginally came. That this trust was des- troyed no one will question. It was destroyed by the Parliament of France Tlien. if such b- the case, the heivs of the dimors are now entitled to the property, whoever they may be. But it may be said that! am building up a fictitious case, and, therefore, I will quote the language of the Rev. Father Flannery of St Miclial's Cathedral, of Toronto, on 17th February, 1889. He said: "These lands were never given to them by the French Government or l)y nny Government, but were the d