■^"

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

^\%

/#/A-

1.0

1.1

o
u

lAO

11-25 III 1.4

1.6

■^^r

°^ :^*

'^■^^

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STRIiET

WEBSTER, NY. M580

(716) 873-4S03

■^

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CiHM/iCMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques

The Institute has attemptec! to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checlced below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagte

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur6e et/ou peilicul6e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

□ Coloured maps/
Cartes gAographiques en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. nutre que bleue ou noire)

D
D
D

Colouied plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior ..le^gin/

La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intArieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mals, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas At6 filmAes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplAmentaires:

L'Institut a mIcrofllmA le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurer. F.es details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibiiographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont Indiqute ci-dessous.

I — I Coloured pages/

Pa^es de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagies

Pages restored ond/oi

Pages restaurAes et/ou peiiiculAes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxei
Pages dtcolortes, tachetAes ou piqu6es

Pages detached/
Pages ditachies

Showthrough>
Transparence

Quality of prir

Qualit6 in6gale da i'impression

mcludes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire

Only edition available/
Seu(a Mition disponible

I — I Pages damaged/

I — I Pages restored ond/or laminated/

r~> Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

I — I Pages detached/

r^ Showthrough/

I — I Quality of print varies/

I — I mcludes supplementary material/

I — I Only edition available/

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalemen*. ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont At6 fiimies A nouveau de fapon A
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

^~"~^

19V

IfiX

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

National Library of Canada

L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit gr&ce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

Bibliothdque naJonale du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract spscifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each mi'^rofiche
shall contain the symbol -♦►(meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction rateos. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les images suivantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimis sent film^s en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'Mlustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinta
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le
symbols V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., ^euvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m6thode.

THE

GAZETTE AND MAIL'S

CAMPAIGN

AGAINST THE

JESUITS' ESTATES BILL

( 1888 )

A. E. JONES, S. J

" It was not necessary to cite authors to prove that the custom of civilized nations
is to respect private property, or any property not obnoxious to the fundamental law
of the conquering state."— J/(^«/ac<?/ Gazette, July 7, 1888.

«• Beyond question the Quebec Legislature is well within its rights in passing that
, measure (the compensation bill fas well as in passing the Jesuit Incorporation A^l of
last year."— 7'f»;w</r' Mail, July 5, r888.

MONTREAL

1H8!)

1 \\

il:

hi;:-

it* (

THE

GAZETTE AND MAIL'S

CAMPAIGN

AGAINST THE

JESUITS' ESTATES BILL

A. E. JONES, S.J

" Beyond question the Qucljec Ixgislalure is well within its rights in passing that
measure (the compensation bill) as well as iu passing the Jesuit Incorporation Act of
last year." — Toicttto Moi,\ ]\x\y -3, 188S.

MONTREAL

ft I'-
ll '

\ '■'.'

i .

i ■

•V
1

II!

!li

CONTENTS

THE GAZETTE'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THt: BILL

?vLV„ ,"'" """'■' "' ■'"' •'<'-^-'="'T^^-- [Montreal. June 2L'. 1888]. 1

There as been no appeal to religions prejndice.s in the defence of the ^-ght.Jof
the Jesuits and no "vague tirades' about treaty rights. The defence
ffrounded on the merits of the case

The position .f the Catholic who attacks the Socie;;-""an';;n'e'nv;"abie"'one -
(rregory XVIto Mgr Affre

Synopsis of the legal statement of the case. The"sei.m-e'of 'ihe Jesuit's'Esiaie^ '
not .s.,nct.oned by right of conquest in general, nor by the terms of capi-
tulation in particular '

'^'" "veveu^f'''' ""' ^"l''^-^^'--^^ ii'^^^>-'"'eniioned'in';ra:nsi^;;;;;on' '' '

The government theiefore h;;;';io",;o;it;v';;;;;;birdaim: ■ The'pr^s^nV Soci^i^: '

of Je^us has. [Se>- note] ^

Kditoiial note of the Gazette to the above reply....." !'*

Nkco.no AKTICI.K OF TiiK - (Jazkttk." [./line 2.5, 1888] !!

Third articlk ok thk •' (J.^zettk." [.June 27, 1888] •

Seco.no reply to the '' G.vzETTE," [Juuc 28, 1888] . . .

The shallowness of the Gazette-., vt'ai>onin<r

Misquotations and misstatements. The liLdy of ■th;;"Ki;is;^;a;e"in'F;-ance'h; '"
1-61 report favorably on the O.der. Catholic France agains". the e.-

pnlsion of the .Jesuits

Christophe de Beaumont's letter [Paris, Aprii' 24;'l774]"t"o" cieimintXI V.:. 'o

In what sense the .Jesuits are permrbators ,

The unanimous voice of the bishops. 0:1 I'iusVn:;e;;tiino;;3;rc;;iI farther;: ''

establishment of the Societv

Th^.Gazr.t.t.\- logic as to the c-ivilsi.ppressio,7in"cmmd7y.'Z'. 11

R>> UUe of ^^ronj.e^t in General;- ncrorln,., to ,l,r f.nrs of natinn.Tconnurrnr

MuMt, an,} .nunorlaUt,, : t.o e.enUal ,ropn-tcns of a M, cor,Jate •<,

//>e bocieti, of .le,u, ia Canala ,va» a ho b, corporate Jnun 1G78.' It. ri.,ht of urn- '
Pt^rt;, ,,'nsproterteJh,, the iMU'gof Xation.-^

Ti. letters ,atent .t the hwuei, K>.,, a:oie,un ...^v;;.?;/;;;,;;:;;::";;;;;';;;; ■'

I he Ro,al u,.trarnon. oj 17.1. t.„ .a,pr..> t'. Jesuit... are a per., uptLt proof of

"'etr corporate e.o.istence down to that d lie at I, a.i/ "u

An.wek to the -O^ZErn-^VontinueJ, [Ga:ette,Juf,^Zmsi:. 3.

settorihttll U4e motives of his action

Paob.

He cxroininiinicnlt!} in lii.s hiieC tliodc; who uiiilly or in writing insult thcmt'ni-

liers of tlu' Society... 'VI

The .Ji'Kiiif s l-'xtattH are (.'hiirch Vrniio.rUi 'J2

Tlif Kin;/ of Frniir.p riiiibl hare no lei/ilinKilf till'- lo t/irni ; and ronnri/iirnl/i/

lifiitficr C()ul<Ulic Lm<j of Kni/linid ir/io merdil Kiirrfpileil to /lin rii/lit 'S.t

The dttljf of mnintaiHiny the existing Imcs of pro^ierln in im/ioseil hi/ the general

right ofeonquent :!.'l

The Qiielier Art 'j/ 1774, ina.\niueh ax it rentrictn treat)/ KtijiiilutionM, is ultra rires.

It in no wise a(/'er.t,s vested rights ; hence, inajipliealile to the case ;!4

JJg title of the ronqiiest of Canada in /lartirnlar the right of the Jesuits to Ih'ir
/iro/iertg was iinassailahle. (Japitulatiou of (.^ncbi'C. Tiiat of .Montreiil
iintl of tJic whole i)r()vince 'M\

Tile Trent y of Peaee 38

What was re/ased with a proviso in the XA'.Vll I article of the Capitulation of

Montreal? Jnterprctation of Treatg Stipulations 38

A coinnion sense notion of the sacredness of Treaties and capitulations, it

tallies with tlnit of tlie great authorities t!

//// whom the wrung was jier/iet rated >.'!

English Aathorittes on the rights o/ Religious Orders in Canada to their propertg

as secured hg treatg ■\'.\

Thurlnw on the above rights and on the change of pre-existing laws 14

English Penal and Common Law, as such, do not hold in the Colonies ; the mean-
ing of the clause : " as far as the laws of Great Jirilain /lermit " 44

A.N.swKii TO THK "' Gazkttk.'' — Continued. [Gazette, Jalg 5, 1888] 47

The title hg escheat is not valid, nor was it urged, in the matter of the Jesuits'

Estates 47

A corporate bodg can not he ileslroged hg the ruler in virtue of his Rogal prero-
gative alone 48

I'roof that the Crown inhibited the Jesuits fron' receivini/ new nnmhers. Con-

sequenllg the title of the province to the estates hg escheat is nntcnable 41*

lietore the law, the /lositive claim of the Jesuits to their estates is valid '>{)

TuK (lAZKTTKs LAST WoKi) — [July 7, 1888]

A further reply to the (lazetto is refused pul)lication ."i!)

TuK IIK.IKCTK1) IlK;oi.\i)Kit to tlic Gazcttc's Last Word <l()

The Gazette facts on a par with Gazette principles tiO

Private property to be respected when not ()i)noxious to the fundamental Law
of the conquering .Stale. — The (iazeltc and Wedderburue arm in arm —
A bugaiioo fiO

Sir Richard Temple ben:s witness in India lo the loyalty of the Jesuits 61

In IV'il the leading Lawyers of Paris opine that the houses of the Order have,

financially speaking, no mutual responsibility 62

Why three Catholic States e.xpelled the Order. In order of attack, the Jesuits

first the Church next 6.T

.A learned Protestant proclaims the Order ''a common bulwark o/de/encejor all

lawj'nl authoritg " 6,'?

Wedderbnrne discloses the real cause of opposition lo the Jesuits for the edifi-
cation of their opponents of to-tlay tJ4

Wedderburne's new principle lo justify spoliation. — An ''ingenioua specu-
lation." — Present good behaviour punishable for possible future miscon-
duct. — Unparalleled generosity. —6-'(/ie//:e tactics productive of a new crop
ufWedderburacs t)5

Paor.'
Mftrriot, V(il(iriri''rtfiioinl,anoth{'rpa'rnn saiiil (tf\\wf,'ii:i'fti<. — A cynir.— A selC-

coiif't'ired din'ioina of incouipett'ucy. — A siipt'iHiious decoration, but well

deserved '>'■>

A legal .snub from Sir I'letcluT Norton and William de Grey. — Diinkin's dreams.

beside the (|iu'>>tion <>"

" The tilh- which u-nn f/imi //>/ the Kin;/ ' I he uld J'rorince of Lower Canada wan

not onhj hji conquest but bij escheat is a Gazette proposi lion without proof. t>T
A rrunib of comfort. — The ghost of escheat finally laid. — The confiscation based

solely on the rigiits of conquest <>S

From pillar to post. — The Gazette's iwn rulpa. — His last blunder worse than

the first <>n

Father Casot's real status made clear 70

I THE TORO^tTO MAIL AND THE LITTLE DREAMER.

The Toronto Mail Juhi 2, 1888.

Summary of the Article and Reply 72

T<>xt of the Article and Reply 72

The Pope as a fourth Estate in the Province of Quebec 72

Are what arc termed Jesuits' Estates public property ? 73

Does it belong to the people of Quebec irrespective of Creed ? 73

The e.xact terms of the cession to Quebec of the Jesuits' Estates. — Lord Gode-

rich's despatch, July 7, 1831 73

The real solutioi 74

The Protestant horse and the Huntingdon nigiitnuire 75

Ignorance of the Quebec Legislature in not knowing that instead of the Pppe

the Mail and Gleaxkr are the fourth Estate in the realm 76

The Toronto Mail, Julii 5, 1888.

Summary of the Article and Reply 78

The spoliation theory. — A rule thatshould work both ways. French and English

Lawo. — The stream that runs up hill 76

Text of the Article and Reply 77

After the Brief of Suppression in 1773 did the 'Jesuits cease everywhere to
exist? — Frederick II. — Mgr Briaiid and Carleton. — The Brief never pro-
mulgated in Canada 78

Were the Royal Instruction, 1791, ever carried into effect ? — Stubborn facts vs.
the Mail's doubts. — Was an alien General of the Order the proprietor of
the Estates ? 79

The non-solidarity of the Jesuit establishments. — The Institute of the Jesuits

determines the powers of the General 80

What of the proprietorship in Canada? — The General an alien, an idle rjues-
tion. — The non-solidarity question and civil legislation in Protestantand
Catholic countries 81

Does a mendicant order hold property ?— Jurisprudence on these matters in

France 82

The Mail waives an untenable point, etc 83

Escheat once more.— The Mercer and the Jesuits' Estates.— The Mail's notions

on parallelism.— Proscribed in England 84

The Jesuits and the Kngli.h Government after 17".T-X„ ronfiscution of th!,'"''

KHtatcs n. I.a Martii.if,„o, nor in India.-An mlverse precedent 8.",

Tiii-KLow vs. liLACKSToNK.-CoIonial I>en«I Laws a n.vth 8H

The Mail's dishonest taclics.-The questioa Mimme.l up 87

Does the brief of 1773 palliate spoliation ?-.Vo ^\a^y in the'lin^'of' argVunent

against escheat —A correction g-j

The Mail'8 test of analogy !....!...... 87

Analysis of the assume.! parity between the JesiVii 'cori)o'ration ami the Orange'-

men and Masons in Quebec g^

The Society of Jesus identifies itself with no purely political party. .....' m

The Society grateful to its benefactors, irrespective of party . «o

The Mail declares that in passing the Mills of Incorporation an'd Compensation
111 favor of the Jesuits //,r Quvh.c LcjnJ.aure /.. n-ell within itx ri,,hls ;
and that the only justifiable ground of Disallowance would be' that

pul)lic good would suffer ,„

Lax Kthicfl.— A general rejoinder.-la-t truth be cherished by on'r'adVersaries. !>'

Useful References in the present controversy ,j^

Thk Jkhimt Declaratiox ok liiGUTs made previous to the seizure 03

FIRST ARTICLP: of the "GAZETTE."

(The Gazette, Montreai, June 22, 1888.)

THE JESUITS' ESTATES.

The question of the Jesuits' Estates is, we venture to think, much
simi.ler tlian it has been made to appear. We do not now propose to
question Mr. Mercier's power to give to the present order of Jesuits a
half m.ihon of dollars; nor do we wish to impugn the merit of that
society : we merely desire that the facts concerning the estates of the
Jesuits of 1760 may be understood. They are not many in number

It IS not worth while to discuss the position under French law of
the Jesuits in Canada at the conquest. They held property here in
some way as a matter of fact, and were recognized by the King of
France. Their position under the English regime necessarily depended
upon the terms-ist of the capitulation to Amherst in 1760 ; 2nd upon
those of the cession to the English Crown in 1763 under the treaty
Article 32 of the capitulation reads : " The communities of nuns shall
" be preserved in their constitutions and privileges. They shall con-
" tmue to observe their rules. They shall be exempted from lodging
II any military, and it shall be forbid to trouble them in their religious
" exercises." The reply of Amherst was : " Granted." Article 2>Z reads ■
" The preceding article shall likewise be executed with regard to the
•' communities of Jesuits and Recollets and of the house of St Sulpice
" at Montreal. This last and the Jesuits shall preserve their right to
" nominate to certain curacies and mission^: as heretofore " 'I'he
" answer of Amherst was : " Refused ; till the king's pleasure be
" known. " The next Article provided that the Jesuits, Recollets and
Sulpicians " shall be masters to dispose of their estates and to send
" the produce thereof, as well as their persons and all that belongs to
"them, to France." Thus in the surrender, of the country by the
governor of New France to the general-in-chief of the English army
the case of the Jesuits was specially considered. It was to depend
" upon the pleasure of the king " of England.

From 1760 to the close of the war everybody in Canada waited in
uncertainty as to the fin^;! result. The det^nitive treaty of peace was

!;:

i,ri

iji

* I :

i! i

signed at Paris, on February lo, 1763. The only stipulations bearing
upon the question are the following : "His Britannic Majesty agrees
** to grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of
*' Canada ; he will consequently give the most effectual orders that his
*' new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their reli-
** gion according to the rites @f the Roman Church as far as the laws
*^ of Great Britain permit. His Britannic Majesty also agrees that
" the French inhabitants, or others who had been the subjects of the
" most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and
*' freedom whenever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates,
'■'■ provided it be to subjects of His Britannic Majesty^ and bring away
*' their effects, as well as their persons, without beii.g restrained in
*' their emigration under any pretence whatever, except that of debts
*' or criminal prosecutions ] the term limited for this emigration shall
** be fixed for the space of eighteen months to be computed from the day
*' of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty. "

Thus it is manifest that what was secured to the French Canadians by
treaty A'as the hberty to worship according to the rites of the Roman
Church to the limit of the English law as it then stood ; while the Sul-
picians, Recollets and Jesuits were left under the terms of the capitula-
tron, viz : to " the pleasure of the King " as regards their property ;
but they, like all other Canadians, might sell their estates to English
subjects within eighteen months and retire to France. The Sulpicians
complied. The heads of the order in France sold all their Canadian
property within the sijecified time to the house in Canada. The Su.-
picians in Canada became British subjects and followed the fortunes
of the French Roman Catholic Canadians who remained in the country.
This the Jesuits did not do. The rules of their order would not permit
it. Consequently they, by the terms of the capitulation, remained still
" at the ])leasure of the King." Tlere is a profound distinction between
the Seminary of St. Sulpice and the order of Jesuits. The first was
originated by ]'"rench subjects in France under French law : the second
originated in Spain ; it is of no nationality, and its law is the will of its
general.

While the emigration was going on and the Sulpicians were arranging
for the transfer of their property, before the eighteen months had
expired, the Government of France, in t7;)4, suppressed the order of
Jesuits, dissolved its houses, and banished from the soil of France all
its members. So far as French law had effect, the Jesuit order ceased
to be. The blow had been long impending. The bishops of France
had represented to the Due de Choiseul that the unhmited authority
of the general residing at Rome was incompatible with the laws of

France. The " pleasure of the King of England " was not likely to be
more propitious than that of the bishops and King of France. This
was manifest in the King's instructions to Governor Murray, December
7, 1763, clause 32 — "You are not to admit of any ecclesiastir:»l juris-
" diction of the See of Rome or any oiher foreign ecclesiastical juris-
*' diction whatever in the province under your government. " This
jealousy of the See of Rome was relaxed in after years, and religious
liberty was secured to the French-Canadians by the Quebec Act of
1774. The laws of Great Britain were, by that act, so extended as to
secure the fullest liberty to the Roman Catholic rjigion — liberty to a
far greater extent than, at that time, was enjoyed by the Protestant
dissenters from the Anglican Church in P2ngland. In the meantime,
before the Quebec Act was passed, and while the British Government
was deciding upon its ultimate policy, there was no hesitation as to the
Jesuit order. The commission to the King's Receiver-General in 1765
shows that. His instructions read as follows : " And whereas the lands
*' of several religious societies in the said province, particularly those
" of the society of the Jesuits, are, or will become, part of His Majesty's
" revenue, you are therefore to endeavor, by agreements to be made
*' with the persons interested for the present in any of the said estates,
" to take the said estates into your charge, giving unto them rcspec-
" tively such competent allowance thereon for their lives, as you may
*' judge proper, taking care that these lands may not be sequestered
*' or alienated from His Majesty. " Again in a letter from Lord Shel-
burne to Governor Carleton November 14, 1767, we read : " It has
" been represented to His Majes'iy that the Jesuits of Canada make
" large remittances to Italy and that tney imperceptibly diminish their
" effects for that purpose * * * 'Pqq much care cannot be taken
" that they do not embezzle an estate of which they*enjoy only the
" life-rent and which must become on their demise a very considerable
*' resource to the province, in case His Majesty should be pleased to
" cede ii for that purpose. "

It is the habit of many who live by whipping up religious and race
jealousies to base the liberty enjoyed by the French Catholics in Canada
upon the capitulation and the treaty. They suppress entirely the clause :
*' so far as the laws of Great Britain permit." These documents are
to be found in any history. The fact is well known ; and yet vague
tirades about " treaty rights " still serve to mislead simple people and
prejudice them against the English Government. Once again, let us
say it : the people of Canada were abandoned by the French of Old
France. The English laws at that time permitted very little toleration
to Roman Catholics ; but the English Parliament modified its laws,

If I

I '•'■'■

f II

S I :!;

f i ''\

eleven years after the treaiy, in deference to the religious sentiments-
of the French who remained in Canada. We cannot lay too much
stress u])on this fact. It is explained away, it is minimized, it is con-
tradicted, but nevertheless it is true; it is plainly written in easily-
accessible documents and to stand up before ignorant audiences and
deny it is dishonest. Let us never be forgotten that the charter of
French Catholic liberty is in an act of Parliament and not in a treaty.
The act of 1774 made a new departure in Canadian history, and neces-
sarily new instructions were sent to the Governor. These were dated
January 3, 1775 ; the passages of present interest are the following :
" That the society of Romish priests, called the Seminaries of Quebec
" and Montreal, shall continue to possess and occupy their houses of
" residence and all other houses and lands to which they were lawfully
" entitled on the 31st September, 1759, and it shall be liwful for those
" societies to fill up vacancies and admit new members according to
" the rules of their foundation. * ^ * That the Society of the
" Jesuits be suppressed and dissolved and no longer continued as a
" body cor'porate and politic, and all their rights, possessions and
" property shall be vested in us, for such purposes as we may hereafter
" think fit to direct or appoint ; but we think fit to declare our royal
" intention to be that the present members of the said society, as estab-
" lished at Quebec, shall be allowed sufiicient stipends and provisions
" during their natural lives. " Thus was the pleasure of the King made
known, and so it was carried out, until, in 1800, the last Jesuit, Father
Cazot, died, and the last stipend out of the JesuUs' estates ceased..

But, in the meantime, while the last Jesuits in Canada were ending
their lives in peace and plenty under a Protestant King, the order was
totally suppressed throughout the whole Catholic world. The storm
which had been long gathering, broke in 1759, in Portugal. In 1764
in burst in France ; in 1767 in Spain. The order was totally suppres.s.ed
in the European and colonial possessions of these and ail other
Catholic countries, its estates confiscated, its members banished. The
Catholic countries did not allow stipends for life, but drove the unfor-
tunate Jesuits into exile and want. This was not the worst, fi)r on July
21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued the celebrated Brief Dominns ac
Redcmptor nostrr, in which he sujjpressed the order throughout the
world, and it remained suppressed and utterly dissolved until ff)urteen
years after Father Cazot's death at (Quebec. Truly, if ever a man died
without heirs it was Frt' er Cazot; and if ever there was an escheat,
the Jesuits' estates would have been escheated, even if they had, not
been confiscated at the concpiest. The Pope's brief is very loni'. He
cites many previous instances of the suppression of religious orders by

the Holy See ; he recites the many favors and privileges conceded to
the Jesuits and he states that almosl from their institutfon *• there arose
" in the bosom of the society divers seeds of discord and dissention,
" not only among the companions but with other regular orders, the
** secular clergy, the academies, the universities, the public schools
^' and lastly even with the Princes of the states in which the society
*' was received. " The Pope then recites at some length these quarrels ;
the dissentions, he says, grew day by day — the accusations " multiplied
" without number, especially with regard to that insatiable avidity of
*' temporal possessions with which it was reproached. " Then follows
an account of some abortive attempts to reform the society — " in vain,"
he adds, did these Pontiffs "endeavor by salutary constitutions to
"*' restore peace to the Church, as well as with respect to secular affairs
" with which the comjiany ought not to have interfered." After reciting
some further efforts he proceeds " After so many storms, temi)csts, and
' divisions, every good man looked forward with impatience to the
■" happy day which was to restore peace and tranquillity ; but, under
" the reign of Clement XIII, complaints and quarrels were multiplied
" on every side, in some places dangerous seditions arose, tiunults,
" discords, dissensions, scandals, which, weakening or entirely breaking
" the bonds of Christian charity, excited the faithfiil to all the rage of
** party hatreds and enmities. " These and such like grievances are
recited at great length. At last the conclusion comes. " After a mature
" deliberation, we do, of our certain knowledge and the fulness of our
" apostolical power, suppress and abalish the said company. " The
Pope " abrogates their statutes," extinguishes the authority of all their
officials, releases all their novices, forbids any accessions to the order,
submits all who hax'e taken the last vows to the authority of the
Bishops, converts their property to jiious uses accoiding to the inten-
tion of the founders and the holy canci ~. and extends the operation of
the Brief even to the distant missions. " Our will and meaning is that
the suppression atd destruction of the said society and of all its parts
shall have an immediate and instantaneous effect " under pain of the
greater excommunication reserved solely to the Pope.

Now then — seeing that all this had in 1773 been done and said by
the Supreme Pontiff and that the Jesuits had been expelled out of all
Catholic lands into orthodox Russia and Protestant Prussia, where
they lived as individuals, was it strange that the King of England
should, after providing so carefully for good Father Cazot, apply the
Jesuits' estates to educational purposes ? for the Jesuits were a teaching
order. When Father Cazot died there was no Jesuit corporate body
any where throughout the world. Pius VII, in 181 1, when he reinsti-

''V

ill

tuted the order in Russia, calls them '* secu'ar priests, once member*
"of the company of Jesus, suppressed by Clement XIV, of happy
*' memory," and his bull of restoration, August 7, 1814, did not at*
tempt to reinstate them in their possessions. Those possessions by the
Roman, canon law as well as by the express terms of the Brief would
fall into the general administration of the Church ; they cannot by the
law of the Church be inherited by the present Jesuits. The corporate
identity of the order is broken. In Canada it ceased to exist as a cor-
poration, in 1760, by English law. By canon law it ceased to exist in
1773. In the Roman Church the order was re-incorporated in 1814.
In Canada it was incorporated last year, but the corporate life has
been hopelessly interf^upted. The present corporation is a new person.
By canon law no prescription caii run against the Church, but the
order of Jesus is not the Church of Rome, The Church of Rome
existed before the Jesuits, it existed during their suppression ; not in
Russia, where alone for thirty years there were avowed Jesuits, but in
its old seat among the Catholic nations. The "worship according to
the rites of the Roman Church" referred to in the treaty is a definite
thing ; the establishment of the order of Jesus is another thing. It is
an utter confusion of ideas to attempt to drag the latter into the treaty.
If it be thought desirable to present a half million of dollars to the
Jesuit Fathers who are working in our midst, the Legislature has the
power to do it ; but let not justification be sought by confusing the
facts of history.

ANSWER TO THE "GAZETTE."

j'.'i

If:;.

(The Gazette, Montreal, June 25.)

To the Editor of the Gazette :

Sir, — In your editorial of this morning (Friday, June 22nd) you have
reproduced very nearly the same long category of historical, legal and
canonico-legal inaccuracies with which a contributor to the Star
favored the public in the issues bearing date of 19th May and J3th
June.

As I had occasion then to remark, there is no easier task than that
of heaping up gratuitous assertions, but it is a long one to classify and
refute them. The Star, with that Anglo-Saxon fairness which I am
only too willing to suppose, as I am myself an Anglo-Canadian, is the
characteristic of every man who has English blood in his veins,.

, ;

at
id
m
\e

published my answer in the subsequent issues of May 26th, June 2nd,
7th, 8th, 9th, 15th and i6th. I have no reason to think that the
Gazettk will be less courteous. I regret, however, that your editorial
duties have not allowed you petsonally, nor the writer of the article, to
take cognizance of the arguments and citations which have convinced
other minds thai I have not " whipped up religious and race jealousies
to base the liberty enjoyed by French Catholics in Canada upon the
capitulation and the treaty," that I have much less had a recourse to
" vague tirades about treaty rights ;" but have quoted the best English
authorities to sustain my position, and shown to every anbiased mind
that the "simple people mislead," and if you so put it, ''prejudiced
agains'. the English Government" are no less personages than the then
Premier of Great Britain, his solicitor and attorney-general, a li>rd high
chancellor of England, and absolutely the entired body of those emi-
nent men who have professedly written on the laws of nations, consti-
tutional law, and the prerogatives of the Crown, Joseph Chitty himself
included.

I am still waiting to see if any one can point'out one single flaw in
my reasoning. Un'il then I would be justified in allowing your editorial
to go by unheeded. But behind you, Mr. Editor, is the expectant
public, composed, in great measure, of fair minded men who would
not stand by and see an injustice done. Some may be prejudiced by
early education against the Society of Jesus, but, whatever be their
prejudices, they would, even where there is question of the much
abused order, be ready to give the devii his due.

The attack made upon the just claims of the society of Jesuits in
your journal is derived ostensibly from two sources, canon and iniblic
law. There is, furthermore, an inter-mixture of false ai)])reciations,
historically speaking, and a latent but strong ajjpeal to popular preju-
dice ; and this in the way of presenting the brief of suppression.

I am loath to believe that your article was inspired by one who is of
our own creed. My instinct, however, leads me to ascribe it to some-
body noi unknown in the family circle of the contributor to the Sar.

For the Protestant public, whom I know to be fairly inclined to see
justice done, I shall furnish sufficient proofs. For the Catholic public,
I know the immense majority to be in sympatliy with the cause I
sustain. Well educated Catholics, if they be at all familiar with the
history of Europe of that period, know full well by what secret influences
the suppression of the Jesuits was brought about, if not, it would be
well for them to consult the fifth volume of Cretineau-Joly's History of
the Society of Jesus. They know, moreover, what was the real mind of
the Roman Pontiff's previous to the suppression, what that of every

IFI"-

L I jl
PI . ll
t I ! I

!: y

1 ' k

'1 .i !;

succeeding Pope until the present venerable occupant of the Holy See,
in the brief Dolenins inter, gave back to the society all its privileges
after having bestowed upon it unbounded praise.

The position of the Catholic, who assails the society of Jesus, as a
body, is not an enviable one, even though he assail it under a non-
Catholic mask. The words of Leo XIII., in the above mentioned brief,
show that that Catholic is not in harmony of sentiment with the one he
looks upon as Christ's vicar on earth.

The words of Gregory XVI. to Mgr. AffrCj Archbishop of Paris,
should be a warning. " We are aware that this society (of Jesus)
is looked upon by the m(ire prudent and fervent among Catholics
as having deserved well of the Catholic cause, and for that very
reason is it held in his^h esteem by this Holy See ; we are aware
it is deemed of bad repute among those who are unbelievers, or
who have little sympathy with the authority of holy church, and who
after this, Venerable Brother, might well boast the support of your
name to accredit their calumnies against it."

As the proofs I have»already given in the Star remain unshaken, and
hold good also against what has appeared in the columns of the
Gazette, I do not see why I should inliict a repetition of my answer
on a patient public ; more especially as they will shortly be able to
procure the whole correspondence in pamphlet Allow me, therefore,
Mr. Editor, to change the form of my answer. I am ready, in your
next issue, to make good what follows :

1. In principle, the assumed right of seizing the Jesuits' estates, and
the actual seizure, in part or in whole, was unwarrantable, (See 3.)

2. And therefore, all subsequent acts concerning these estates, such
as transfers, apjiropriations, donations or sales, based upon the same,
are equally unwarrantable.

3. This assumed rignt, and in fact the actual seizures could be valid
only

I. By right of conquest, (See 4> or

II. By right of escheat. (See 13, pnge 9.)

Now neither of these titles is valid in the case of the Jesuits' estates.
(See 4 and 13.)

jji
■il

4. The title of Conquest is not valid in the matter of the seizure of
the Jesuits' estates. (See 5 — 12.)

5. ^wA firstly the seizure is not valid by the general right of con-
guest ,■ (See 6, pages 9 and 22.)

6. For by natural law, and by the laws regulating ihe mutual rela-
tions between Sovereign and subject, the rightof property of individuals
and of bodies corporate and politic may not arbitrarily be invaded by
the Sovereign (page 48).

7. For by the common accord of all authorities on the Laws of
Nations, the general right of Conquest confers the right of sovereignty
alone, and no others than those which the supplanted Sovereign pre-
viously possessed (pages 22 to 26).

8. Now, the Society of Jesuits was a body corporate and politic,
legally recognized as such by

(a) France before and at the Conquest (pages 26, 27, 28), and by

(b) England at and after the Conquest (pages 29, 30).

9. And that furthermore such estates are church property (pages

32, 33)-

(a) To which the King of France previously had and could have no

legitimate title (page 33) ;

(b) And to which, consequently the King of England, who supplanted
him, could have no legitimate title (pages 22 to 26, 44 to 48).

10. And that the general right of Conquest imposes the duty of
maintaining the existing law.s of property (pages ^;^, 24, 25) ;

(a) And by these laws their estates were secu:ed to them (27,28,33).

11. That furthermore, as a statute cannot render void a treaty, the
clause in parenthesis in Art. VIII., of Act 14 Geo. III., c. 83 (the
"'Quebec Act") is null and void, and moreover frustrated by its own
Art. Ill (pages 34, 35).

12. And secondly the seizure of the Jesuits' estates is not valid by
the right of this particular conquest as set forth, in the case of Canada,
by the terms of the Capitulations and Treaty (pages 36 to 47;.

II.

13. The title by escheat is not valid, nor was it urged, in the matter
of the seizure of the Jesuits' estates (page 47) ;

14. For by an unwarrantable proceeding the administration deprived
them of the chances of succession by inhibiting them from receiving
new members (pages 48 to 50) ;

15. For by the right of conquest the King of England acquired the
sole rights of the King of France, who could not, even by lawful escheat,
become possessor or usufructuary of church property (No. 7a & No. 9a).

16. What concerns vacant benefices in art. xxxv. of Act 31, George
III., chap. 31, ("Constitutional Act") is at variance with the afore-
said principles of the laws of nations concerning the rights acquired

by conquest, and in direct contravention of the articles of the capitu-
lation, and of the definitive treaty (No. 7 and No. 9a)*.

If, Mr. Editor, after I have made good what precedes, the writer of
the article finds some link missing let him point it out, or state what
else he would have me prove.

Yours, ets.,

U. E. L.
Montreal, June 22, 1888.

[" U. E. L." is astray in his idv-a as to the writer 6f the article he
criticizes. That, however, is an indifferent matter. His letter is inserted
as a statement of the side of the case opposite to that taken by this
paper. That we do not coincide in its views need not be stated, and
we will take an early occasion to show wherein they are, as we see
them, defective, and where " U. E. L." fails to establish the rights now
claimed on behalf of the reorganized society. In the meantime atten-
tion is directed to the synopsis in another column of Hon. Mr. Mercier's
resolutions before the Legislature which in some points bear upon
.'* U. E. L's" arguments. — Ed. Gazette.]

SECOND ARTICLE OF THE " GAZETTE."

nil

ml
hi

i' i

■\ III

(The Gazette, /////^ 25, 1888.)

On every ground from which the question can be regarded, it cannot
but be considered unfortunate that the present Premier of this pro-
vince should have undertaken the revival of the Jesuits' claims. There
is probably no country in the world in which the society of Jesus has
enjoyed so fair a reputation and so large a share of good-will from
the people generally without distinction of creed, as have fallen to
their lot in Canada. Their piety, humanity and coUrage are associated
with the most heroic and romantic period in our annals. " Amid the
snow of Hudson's Bay, among the woody islets and beautiful inlets of
the St. Lawrence, by the council fires of the Hurons and Algonquins,
at the sources of the Mississipi, where first of the white man, their
eyes looked upon the Falls of St, Anthony, and then traced down the
course of the bounding river as it rushed onward to earn its title of
" Father of waters," on the vast prairies of lilinois and Missouri,
among the blue hills which hem in the salubrious dwellings of the
Cherokees, and in the thick canebrakes of Louisiana — everywhere were

* For positive claim of the Jesuits see p«ige 50.

found the niembers of the society of Jesus." Tlie story of their trials
and triumphs on this continent, and especially within the limits of our
own land, is one of the most interesting and instructive in the records
of missionary labor. Their devotion and heroism cast into the shade
(at least, for Canadian readers) those less commendable qualities and
proceedings which, in other parts of the world, aroused the suspicion
or the anger of governments and communities. If we except certain
rivalries and ambitions which marked some passages in their career,
the members of the order in Canada have never forfeited that respect
which is due to the faithful prosecution of noble aims. When Father
Casot died in March, 1800, he was regretted by rich and poor alike.
The Quebec Gazette described his death as a public calamity, and such
it doubtless was to hundreds of poor people who had benefited by his
charities. At that time the order had no legal recognition in any Ca-
tholic country. Even before the taking of Quebec the storm of indig-
nation that had been threatening them in Europe had begun to burst
upon their heads. The members of the order had been driven by
Pombal from Portugal and its colonies in September, 1759 ; France and
Spain followed the example a few years later (1767), and Napoleon
and the Duchy of Parma expelled them in the ensuing year. The final
blow fell in 1773, when the society was suppressed by the Pope (Cle-
ment XIV). Being thus denied the protection of Roman Catholic
Christendom, the Jesuits betook themselves to Prussia and Russia, in
the latter of which countries they made their head quarters. A con-
gregation of cardinals was appointed to take possession of the aban-
doned temporalities of the society. The general, Lorenzo Ricci,
having died in prison in 1775, a Pole named Cyernicwicz was elected
in his stead with the'title of Vii'ar-General. Two other Poles held the
same title, the latter of whom, Francis Xavier Kareu, was created
"General m Russia "in 1801 by Pope Pius VII. It was not till 1814,
however, that the society was restored to corporate legal existence.

Only a small number of Jesuits remained in Canada after the capi-
tulation. Fathers Noel, Macquet, de Villeneuve, Glapion, Well and
Casot are among the names on the list- handed down, to us. They
taught school down to the year 1776. Young persons were given ins-
truction in reading, writing and arithmetic ; and there were no restric-
tions as to admission. All who chose to send ther children were free
to do so. Thus, by the testimony of the Bishop of Quebec, members
of the order were recognized even after the publication of the brief of
suppression, and it was not until the last of them had died that the
Crown proceeded to take possession of the estates. This was in accor-
dance with a suggestion of Solicitor-General Wedderburne, who, in

fTTF

1^ :

■ n

■\

giving his opinion on the state of Canada, in December, 1772, «ai(^
that it was " equally just and expedient in this instance to assert the
sovereignty of the King, and to declare that the lands of the Jesuits
are vested in His Majesty, allowing at the same time to the Jesuits
now residing in Canada liberal pensions out of the incomes of their
estates. " LInder all the circumstances, it can hardly be denied that
the Government dealt generously with them.

As to the addresses presented again and again by the people of the
province, or th ir representatives, touching the disposal of those estates,
all that they asked for wa^'that they should be devoted to the diffusion
of (.(lucation. In the petition of 1828 it is incidentally stated that the
* said order was never the proprietor of the said college and estates,
but merely its deijository." In 1831, after a vague or evasive reply
hid been more than once returned to interpellations on the subject,
an ac was- jiasse 1 appropriating the revenues of the Jesuits' estates
< xclusively to educational purpos.'s. If the dis|)osition of the property
t uis determined on did not meet, as to detail, with universal approval
i was generally acquiesced in as the bcsl solution attainable of a
difficult problem. It was in 1842 that the Jesuits renewed the broken
tradition of their nami m New France. Fathers Chazelle, Martin,
'IVlliL-r, Hanipaux, Luiset and Duranqviet arrived in Canada in the
month of May of that year. In September, 1848, the college of St.
Mary was opened in this city and higher education was once more, to
some extent at least, in the hands of the order.

Canada is now an independent i)rovince, and all the fathers .„re, we
iielieve, natives of the country. The good which the order has accom-
])lished during the last hall century is gratefully acknowledged. As
the old Jesuits began with the Christian heroism of Brebojuf and Jogues,
and closed with the gentle charities of Father Casot, so have their mo-
dern successors acquitted themselves with honor in their more tranquil
role of educationists. They have already received substantial evidence
of the esteem in which they are held and of the value set on their ser-
vices to society. The Protestants of Canada regard them with little of
that distrust which is their portion sometimes even in Catholic coun-
tries. As for iheir relations with the orders of their own church and
with the secular clergy it is not for us to meddle with them. We cannot
but feel, nevertheless, that, even on the grounds of worldly wisdom,
Mr. Mercier is badly mistaken if he dreams of serving his former tutors
by raising from its grave this dead issue of a day that is past. Had
Canada remained a French province, need we say that such a claim
would have been unheard of? That, doubtless, is beside the question,
and comparisons are proverbially odious. But setting the Crown and its

actual representatives aside, and takingaccount simply of the commun-
ion to which M. Mercier belongs, is it wise or generous or just to cast
this apple of discord among the people of this province? Whut pur-
pose can it serve save to re-open old sores, to revive old grudges, to
reawaken ancient feuds ! Surely to use his position in that way is the
policy of neither a statesman nor a patriot.

THIRD ARTICLE OF THE " GAZETTE."

(The Gazette, June 27, 1888.)

The Jesuits' Estates Again.

On Monday last we published a letter, signed ** U. E. L." upon the
subject of the Jesuits' estates, in which exception was taken to our
editorial of the Friday previous. We were glad to give space to the
letter. There is nothing we desire more than the candid discussion of
every point of this imi)ortant question, but we wish to confine the dis-
cussion, so far as we are concerned, to the vital issues, and that is the
reason why we could not enter upon the quagmire of irrelevant matter
which our correspondent had previously ojjcned up in the twenty
columns of small print which he had contributed to the Star. We
repeat that the facts lie in small compass and can be grasped by any
layman. Our correspondent wishes to lead us into the uncertain
regions of the text writers upon international law. The question, in
so far as it is a legal one, is one of definite law — of the municipal laws
of France and England, and of the Canon law of Rome, but chiefly, is
it a question of simple fact. In diverting his readers into these
regions where every principle is disi)uted — where there are no formu-
lated decisions, and where irresponsible writers, of varying authority
in different nations, can be quoted in sujiport of almost any i>ro])osi-
tion, " U. E. T-." has led attention away from the essential points. The
reader is insensibly beguiled away fiom the facts, and is apt to suppose
that where so much is said there must be a great deal of reason ;
whereas, usually, the very opposite is the correct conclusion. When a
discussion has got so far adrift, it complicates it more to follow out the
numerous false issues raised. The only reasonable method is to return
to the central facts.

The tendency of "U. E. L." to lead his readers off into side issues
is even more strongly marked in his letter. Whether the writer of this

<.^^

lit

or that article in the editorial columns of the GAZtTTK is a Protestant
or a Catholic is not important. Nor is it important whether he is, or
is not, of the same family as some writer in the S/ar. Such enquiries
are not only contrary to the etiquette of press discussion but they are
irrelevant to the subject in hand. The only rhetorical value they can
possess might possibly be to raise some religious or personal prejudice
and so obscure the force of an opposing argument.

It is not less wanting in candour for "U. E. L." to charge us with
repeating gratuitous assertions. We refer our readers to our issue of
Friday, June 22nd. It will, we think, be found, that we have made
very few assertions. We have allowed the documents — ihe Capitula-
tion and the Treaty — to make the assertions. We have for the most
jjart quoted the words of great state officials. The assertions m our
article were chiefly those of a Pope. Let not the editor of the Gazette
be held to account for them.

And here we would remark that we shall never seek to be more
Catholic than the Pope. It is as much an error to transgress in excess
as in defect, and we warn "U. E. L." that, in setting up Pope against
Pope, he is overstepping the limits of Catholic duty. He charges us
with assailing the Jesuit order, when we quote the Brief Dominus ac
Hedemptor nosier, and he says we are " not in harmony with Leo XIII.,
Christ's vicar on earth". Does *' U. E. L." mean to say that Clement
XIV. was not equally Christ's vicar on earth? He insinuates that Pope
Clement did not state the facts in his Brief. He refers us to Mr. Creti-
neau-joly to learn the unworthy mot'ves which actuated this Pope. We
are not disposed to go a-field after Mr. Cretineau-Joly. We are inclined,
in matters concerning the Roman Church, to believe that the Pontiff
who is its earthly head tells the truth, and we are not disposed to ques-
tion his motives. We resign that to the semi-Protestant school who
are always setting up their private judgments against any Papal
decree they may not approve of — who agree with the Pope when he
agrees with them, and who yet assume to lecture better Catholics than
themselves, as if they alone were the Church and all Catholic truth was
centered in them. We are not disposed to learn our catechism from
amateur Popes. If " U. E. L." prefers to believe that the whole Catholic
world, the Pope included was wrong ; and that the truth retired to
Russia with the Jesuits who went there, we will not lecture him; we
would only remark that his views of Catholicity are somewhat pecu-
liar.

The theory which we maintained has the merit of accepting the Briefs
of all the Popes. We do not yield to " U E. L." in respect for the
learned and able Pontiff who now occupies the Holy See. We acknowl-

edge to the uttermost the self denying zeal of the Jesuit Fathers who
carried the cross into the wilderness and who faced with unshrinking
courage savages more like demons than men in their cruelty. We have
not assailed the |)resent Jesuit order. We have simj)ly maintained
that the Jesuit order, as it existed, was utterly and totally supressed ///
a/l its parts hy \.\\t highest ecclesiastical and civil powers, and that
the present Jesuit order is a new corporation and cannot inher.it the
property of a previous body whose corporate life became extinct forty
years previously. We spare our readers an excursus into the law of
corporations. The application of that law will at once suggest itself.
We observe in the resolutions submitted to the House that some such
view is underlying them ; for the indemnity is to be paid, not according
to the usual courr,r of Canon Law, to the ecclesiastical authorities of
the Roman Church in Canada ; not according to the decision of the
Holy Father as expressed in the Cardinal Prefect's letter of March ist,
1888, to be" deposited and left at the free disposal of the Holy See"; but
" in accordance with the exact terms" laid down by Mr. Mercier, who
evidently desires to compel the Pope to give the money to the Jesuits
— an edifying position for such zealous devotees of the su])reme au-
thority of the Sovereign Pontiff! If the title of the present order of
Jesuits is as clear as " U. E. L." pretends, why cannot the indemnity
be paid to them ?

Our correspondent "U. E. L." asserts that " the assumed right of
the king " to confiscate the estates of the former Jesuits was not vulid.
If he means that the King ougnt not to have done it, we shall not stop
to discuss a matter of private opinion, legal or religious ; but as he
asserts that he has proved his point by the highest English legal autho-
rity we would demur and cite the opinion u|)on this very issue given
in 1765 by the King's Advocate, Dr. .Marriott, to the Attorney and
Solicitor General in London :

" By virtue of the natural law of arms and conquest of countries,
" confirmed by acts of the law of nations by solemn cession and gua-
'• ranty, the possessions of the society lost, of course, all civil protec-
" tion by the fate of war ; but much more so by the only jjower whose
" authority and intervention could have preserved the property of
" these ])ossessions to their supposed owners having withdrawn its
" tolerance and protection and deserted them as a derelict xix. the mercy
" and entirely free disposition of the Crown of Great Britain, by making
" no provision in the articles of cession to serve the pretended rights
" of the community of Jesuits, nor, indeed, of any other ecclesiastical
" community." In view of such an authority as this, and of the spec-
ial reserve of Amherst at the capitulation, that the property of the

Jesuits should be at the '' oleasure of the King," what are we to think
of " U. E. L.'s " law ? Aiia :vhat are we to think of his assertion that
England at and after the conquest lecognized the order of Jesus as a
corpor-'tion, when the extracts given in our preceeding article from
the King's instructions to the Governors uom the first forbade such
recognition, and when " U. E. L." admits that no new members were
permitted to join ?

Again, we come to another proposition in law. " U. E. L." says
that " a statute cannot annul a treaty." We do not propose to waste
time in discussing this, because the proposition is irrelevant. There is
no treaty to annul. We refer to this statement to show how U. E. L's.
method of drawing a red herring across the trail is apt to lead his read-
ers off on a false scent. Surely the unsophisticated would be led to.
think that there is something in the treaty of cession bearing on the
question ! Surely there is something which the act in question sought
to annul. Alas for the candour of those who are eternally talking of
the Treaty, they never quote it. We did, and we now do it again ;
for it is the key of the whole question. We wish our readers to know
that Treaty. It reads : —

((
<(
((
((
((
(<
(>
«(

l<
((
t(

" His Britannic Majesty agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholic
religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will consequently givf^ the
most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects may pro-
fess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Roman
Church as far as the laws of the Great Britain permit. His Britan-
nic Majesty also agrees that the French inhabitants, or others who
had been the subjects of the most Christian King in Canada, may
retire \Vith all safety and freedom whenever they shall think proper
and may sell their estates, provided it be to subjects of His Britannic
Majesty y and bring away their eflects, as well as their persons, without
being restrained in their emigration under any pretence whatever,
excei)t that of debts or of criminal prosecution ; ihe term limited for
this emigration shall be fixed for the space of eighteen months to be
computed from the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the
present treaty."

There it h— absolutely every word bearing on the question. The
rest of it refe.s to boundaries and to the cession and guarantee of the
rights of sovereignty to the King of England. If there is anything else
let somebody print it, so that the public may know it ; and, if not — in
the name of all fairness let this parrot-like iteration cease. This treaty
has been like an .y quantity in algebra. It has been invoked for the
most preposterous propositions. It is supposed to contain the most
prodigious stipulations ; but there it is, the most unlearned and ignorant
can comprehend it. We decline further comment upon it ; again we

-say that the act commonly called the Quebec Act, is the charter of
French-Canadian civil and religious liberty.

We pass now to some propositions concerning " escheats." We are
informed that the King of England had no right of escheat because
he gained by the cession only the rights of the King of France, who
had no right of escheat, in ecclesiastical matters. The law of a-ms
admits of no such nice distinction. The French governor endeavored
to obtain, under article 42 of the Capitulation, a concession of the
French laws and usages. The English commander refused it, saying
in reply, that the Canadians would " become subjects of the king."
Whatever the rights of the King of England might have been they
could not, therefore, have been curtailed at the Conquest. The cession
transferred formally all the rights of the King of France ; it could not
limit the prerogatives of the victor unless so stipulated. The King of
England conceded only the freedom of worship to the extent of the
English law at the time. The king might have introduced the English
civil law into Canada, and, as a matter of fact, that law was for a few
years supposed to be introduced and actually administered until, by
the Quebec Act (not the treaty), the final decision was made. The
English criminal law was introduced, and the French civil law was
recognized and established by the same statute ; but from the operation
of the same statute, the estates of the religious were specially, in its own
terms, excepted. Consequently, the prerogatives of the King of
England, in respect to these special estates, were not limited by any
ecclesiastical laws which might have bound the King of France ; and
his prerogative of escheat remained intact to its full extent. In any
event, the title of the present Jesuit order would not be profited ; for,
if the canon law had its full force, these estates would have fallen into
the general administration of the Roman Church in Canada. Either,
then, the property, in failure of heirs, reverted to the Crown as " over-
lord," or by Canon law it should have passed in trust to the Koman
Bishop of Quebec for the general purposes of the church. It is not
now important to decide which is the correct view for the province of
Quebec has got possession, and is going to settle the matter in some
way. But if the money he paid to the wrong party, the whole question
may be revived in another hundred years ; because the claims of the
Church can never be prescribed.

In our issue of Monday last the names of the Jesuits of the old order
who remained in Canada are given. The last of them. Father Casot,
died in 1800. As a corporate body they had not been recognized.
U. E. L. asserts that by " an unwarrantable proceeding the Adminis-
" tration deprived them of the chances of succession by inhibiting

:!:.!

t 'W

III

I is

them from receiving new members." This same proceeding was takei>
by the King of France in 1764, and by the Pope in 1773. The brief
says, " we do hereby forbid the reception of any person to the said so-
" cieiy, the iioviciate or habit thereof." This prohibition lasted from
1773 to 1815 — for forty-two years. During that period no law, civil or
ecclesiastical, existed under which accessions could have been made
to the Order of Jesuits.

For these reasons, therefore, we believe that the corporate life of the
Society of Jesus has been fatally interrupted, and that the present
society is a new body. We have not assailed either the one or the
other. The representatives of the people of this province have the
power to vote what they like to whom they please. We have simply
protested against the suppression and perversion of plain historical
facts. The liberality of the English Government in T774was far in
advance of anything then known and // 7vas not exacted either by the
Capitulation or the Treaty. No one in Canada one hundred years ago
dreamed of disputing facts so elementary. Therefore, it was to borrow
the words of the Cardinal Prefect Antonelli, in a letter written to the
Bishops of Ireland in 1791, that Canada, " filled as it is with innume-
" rable Catholics, although sorely tempted, and not yet forgetful of
" the old French Government, remained most faithful in its allegiance
•' to England."

ANSWER TO THE " GAZETTE."— 0;///«//<'</.

(The Gazette,/?/;;^ 28, 1888.)

ill! '

1 ;

1 '

Sir, — It would not be fair to be too exacting in the matter of
editorials in the daily press, when we consider that the contributors
have little time to go to the root of things. On the other hand, the
consciousness of this want of preparation should counsel them at times
to be a little diffident, when, on the spur of the moment, they are called
upon to write up a given theme. Then more than ever should they be
chary in asserting that the question "is much simpler than it is made
to appear.

The writer of the Gazette's leader (June 22nd) does n^t hesitate to
solve in his off-hand way a question to which the ablest law-officers of
England could find no legal solution for thirty years ; at the expiration
of which they gave it up in utter desperation.

He does not question Mr. Mercier's power ; he does not, he assures
us, impugn the merit of the Society of Jesus, but he '• merely desires

ed
be
ide

ion

that the facts concerning the estates of the Jesuits in 1760 may be
understood."

Why, then, omit certain articles of the capitulation of Canada, and
dismiss disdainfully all question of the position of the Jesuits of Canada
at the time of the Conquest? Two points absolutely essential, not only
to the solving of the question, but to the bare understanding of it. And
after a few disjointed quotations from the same capitulations and treaty,
why triumphantly conclude. "Thus it is manifest," etc.

It is manifest that no judge, deputed to decide a simple matter of
succession, would go so recklessly to work. He would at least call for
all the papers bearing on the subject. This the writer, I must charitably
suppose, has not done, otherwise I would be forced to the conclusion
that he has wilfully suppressed portions of the capitulation the more
expeditiously to make his subject " much simpler."

An impartial judge would not conclude : " Thus it is manifest that —
the Jesuits were left under the terms of the capitulation, viz: to the
pleasure of the King as regards their property," when the contrary is
expressly stated, and especially as what was refused in an article with
the above limitation breathes not one single syllable with regard to
property.

Neither would he say that the English law, as it then stood, refused
liberty of worship to the Canadians, for he would have read up the
subject and known that neither the common nor the penal laws obtained
in the colonies.

He would not say that the Jesuits did not become British subjects,
nor that their rules would not permit it, for both propositions are in
point of fact untenable.

He certainly would not dogmatically assert that the law of the
Society of Jesus is the will of the General, as the constitutions of the
Jesuits say very much the reverse, and decree that the General must
govern the society according to its institute.

He would not give prominence to the fact, as bearing on the question,
that the Government of France suppressed the order in 1764 ; because
that event took place later than several very solemn compacts, viz. :
five years after the capitulation of Quebec, four after that of Montreal
and the whole country, and one after the treaty.

He would be careful not to affirm that the bishops of France had
represented to the Due de Choiseul that the unlimited authority of the
General was incompatible with the laws of France. A fair judge would
have been deterred from making this assertion through honesty and
love of truth, and not because he might reasonably surmise it to be
just possible that some one among his hearers would rise and read him

r «

h ■.

K'f.':
'■V

^■^:

Ill

a chapter of French history ; recalling to his memory that on the 30th
November, i7(>i, by order of Louis XV., fifty-one cardinals, archbishops
and bishops met, under the presidency of Cardinal de Luynes, to
report on four points, the first of which referred to the advantages and
disadvantages accruing to the realm from the labors of the Jesuits ; the
fourth, what limits might be set to the General's authority. For, to say
the least, it would be an undignified rebuff to be told that, after a
month's study of the constitutions, with the exception of six of the
assembly, they unanimously repoited in favor of the Jesuits and of
their institute ; and that feeble minority, in spite of Choiseul's influence,
could be brought to suggest but some slight modifications ; one alone,
Frangois de Fitzjames, bishop of Soissons, demanding, in favor of his
Jansenist friends, the entire suppression of the Jesuits. It would indeed
be a revelation if •' the bishops of France " were to dwindle down and
be condensed in the personality cf Fitzjames of Soissons.

Mr. Editor, it was in an unguarded moment that the writer of your
leader hazarded that assertion. For he must have known that in some
library, on whose shelves is to be found a history treating of the sup-
pression of the Jesuits, some busy-body would ferret out the letter
(Paris, April 24, 1774) of Christophe de Beaumont, Archbishop of
Paris, in answer to Clement XlV's brief. Its contents might impugn
the writer's historical accuracy, though 1 would be diffident in so doing,
owing to the marked superiority of hij tone.

Here then is an extract, for I regiet that the length of the letter
prevents its being published in full :

" This brief is nothing more than a personal and private judgment
* * * * Qn the other hand, Holy Father, it is not possible that I
should endeavor to prevail upon the clergy to accept it. I would not
be listened to on this point, were I even so ill-advised as to wish to
extend to it the the concurrence of my ministry, which I would thereby
dishonor. The recollection is still too vivid of that general assembly,
which I had the honor of convoking, in compliance with His Majesty's
orders, for the purpose of enquiring into the necessity and utility of
the Jesuits, the purity of their doctrine, etc. In undertaking such a
task I would intlict a very notable injury on the religion, the zeal, the
enlightenment and the rectitude with which those prelates laid before
the King their way of thinking concerning the very points which are at
variance with, and which are reduced to naught by chis brief of
destruction. It is true that, if it must be shown that it was necessary
to go to such lengths, glossing over this destruction with the specious
pretext of peace which could not co-exist with the society, that same
pretext, Holy Father, at most would suffice to destroy all those other

bodies jealous of it, and canonize the society without further proof :
and it is that very pretext which authorizes us to form of the brief in
question a most accurate but most damaging judgment.

" For what is that peace which is given out as incompatible with the
society ? The thought alone is appalling, and we shall never understand
how such a motive could have had strength sufficient ever to have
induced your Holiness to adopt so hazardous, so perilous and so
detrimental a measure. Certainly that peace which is irreconcilable
with the co-existence of the society is that which Jesus Christ calls
insidious, false and deceitful ; in a word, that to which the name only
is given, but which is not peace : Pax, pax, et non erat pax ; that
peace which vice and libertinism affect, recognizing it as their mother ;
which is never allied to virtue, which on the contrary was ever inimical
to piety. It is precisely against such a peace that the Jesuits, in the
four quarters of the globe, have persistently declared a bitter war,
relentless and sanguinary, and waged with the utmost vigor and most
complete success. It is against a peace like this that they have directed
their vigils, their attention, their watchfulness, preferring painful labors
to effeminate and barren ease. It is to exterminate it that they have
sacrificed their talents, devoted their zeal and the resources of their
eloquence, desirous of barring every entrance by which it would force
its way and work havoc within the very pale of Christiai>ity *****
heedless of the greatest perils, counting on no other reward for their
zeal and for their heaven-blest journeyings than the hatred of libertines
and the persecutions of the wicked," etc.. etc.

I am far from endorsing all that Christoi)he de Beaumont indites in
his letter, but he certainly knew, with his hand on the pulse of the
Church of France, what were the dispositions of her prelates.

The society was suppressed thanks to the iiTi]jlacible hostility and
the vile calumnies of a Pombal and a Choiseul. The courts of F^urope,
deluded by these unscrupulous ministers, brought all the weight of
royalty to bear upon the Holy See. But they, in their turn, were soon
swept away by the breath of the Revolution, and Europe was deluged
in blood. The awakening came at last, and th'in from every quarter of
the habitable world poured in upon the Holy See sujjplications to
restore the Order to itfe former state. It was not dead. At the beck of
the Pontiff it came forth from the depths of Russia, equipped as of old
and under the leadership of its General, the true successor of Ricci,
who, heart broken, had breathed his last in the castle of San Angelo.

The words of Pius VII, in the bull Solicitudo Omnium show what the
feeling was amongst the bishops not only of France but of the Catholic
world.

3 :«

5';

" Earnest and persistent supplications for the restitution of the same
Society of Jesus, supported by the all but unanimous approval of the
whole Christian world, reach us daily from our venerable brethren
archbishops and bishops, and from every class and assembly of
influential persons, especially since the report has everywhere gone
abroad of the plentiful fruits which this society has borne in the above
mentioned regions " (Russia and the Two Sicilies).

A painstaking judge would hesitate to tell us that " in Canada the
society ceased to exist as a corporation in 1760 by English law," for it
would imply that the King did a meaningless and silly thing, as the
writev makes His Majesty say in 1775 : We will " that the Society of
the Jesuits be suppressed and dissolved and no longer continued as a
body corjwrate and politic. ..but we think fit to declare our royal inten-
tion to be that the present members of the said society, as established
at Quebec, shall be allowed sufficient stipends," etc. If its corporate
life had become extinct in 1760 by English law, why attempt to kill it
again in 1775? — though I question this latter date, as the royal instruc-
tions of 1 79 1 contain almost verbatim the same decree. In any case it
is evident that if the society consented finally to die, it " died hard."

It would be fairly impossible, Mr. Editor, to pick out the many
other inaccuracies contained in the leader of the 22nd, for it would
crowd out of your excellent paper much other interesting matter.
However, before redeeming the promise made in my first letter, I
desire to say that your leader of June 25th is conceived in a far more
liberal spirit and by one better up in the matter. The-e are few inac-
curacies, though what few there are are not unimportant. He admits
that the question was a " difficult problem," and that " it is doubt'ess
beside the question " to ask would the claim have been heard of had
Canada remained a French province ? Without wishing to answer that
question it would be well not to forget the " raison d'etre " of the
French concordat of 1801.

I.
(1-4 see page S.)
5.

By title of " conquest in general," according to the Laws

of Nations, a conqueror has no right to the

private properties of citizens or of

authorized corporations.

6. 7.

The opinion of all the great authorities on the Law of Nations is
uniform on this point. There is not one discordant voice.

De Vattel. — Law of Nations (Chitty) B. Ill, C. 13, sec. 199 : " The
•conqueror, who lakes a town or province from his enemy, cannot justly
-acquire over it any other riglits than such as belonged to the sovereign
against whom he has taken up arms. War authorizes him to possess
himself of what belongs to his enemy ; if he de|<rives him of the
sovereignty of that town or province, he acquires it such as it is, with
all its limitations and modifications."

Section 200. " One sovereign makes war upon another sovereign,
and not against unarmed citizens. The conqueror seizes on the posses-
sions of the state, the public property, while private individuals are
allowed to rettiin theirs. They suffer but indirectly by the war; and
the conquest only subjects them to a new master."

De Martens. — Droit des gens moderne de I'Europe, vol. II. L. 8.
c. 4 section 280: — " L'action du vainqueur s'exerce direciement sur
les biens composant le domaine de I'Ktat, indirectement sur les biens
des particuiicrs. Le vainqueur sempare de toutes les ressources du
gouvernement vaincu, de ses domaines et de leurs revenus ; il per^oit
les contributions publiques, quan^l aux biens des j)articuliers, la pro-
priete immobiliere n'eprouve aucun changement dans ses conditions
Icgales."

Pinheiro-Ferreira (foot note to preceding passage of de Martens).
" Les contributions dont il est permis de frapper le pays conquis n'ont
])as pour but d'assurer la conservation des proprietes de tout genre ;
car celle du public exceptee, il n'y en a pas qui ne se trouve garantie par
les principcs sacres du droit des gens, que nous avons deduits pr^ce-
demment."

De Martens, Ibid. sec. 281. On admetgeneralement, dans les usages
modernes, que I'invasion et I'occupation militaire n'ont aucun effet sur
la propriete des biens immeubles qui demeurent invariablement aux
anciens detenteurs... La conqugte et I'occupation d'un Etat par uii
souverain etranger n'autorisent pas ce souverain a disposer par dona-
tion ou autrement du domaine conquis oil occupe... Mais ])our ceux
qni font partie du dqmaine de I'Etat, si le vainqueur en a pris posses-
sion meme tem])oraire, il pent en disposer."

Twiss, Law of Nations, ch. 4, sec. 66, " A victorious nation in acquir-
ing the sovereignty dc facto over a country, from which it has expelled
its adversary, does not acquire any other rights than those which
belonged to the expelled sovereign ; and to those such as they are,
with all their limitations and modifications, he succeeds by right of
war."

'• So, likewise, the landed and immovable propery of private indivi-
duals is in general by the positive law of nations not liable to confisca-
tion by a victorious enemy. A victorious nation, on the other hand,
enters upon the public rights of the vanquished nation, and the national
domain and the national treasure passes to the victor."

Kluber, part II, title 2, sec. 256: "According to principles now
followed in Europe, the mere loss of possession by the fortunes of war
does not extinguish the rights of property... As for property and the
•possession of immovable estate belonging to individuals,, who have not
violated the laws of war, the conquest of a country brings no change
-according to the modern laws of war."

f l?l

Manning's (Sheldon Amos) Commentaries on the Law of Nations^
(London. H. Sweet, 1875, page n6.)

'* A conquering state enters upon the rights of the sovereign of a
vanquished state ; national domain and national revenues pass to the
victor ; but the immovable property of private individuals is, by the
positive law of nations, not liable to.be seized by the rights of war... it
has been for many years the constant usage of European warfare, and
is now firmly established as part of the European I aw of Nations."

Welderburnf. (Solicitor-General in 1772), Wedderburne was no
friend of the Jesuits. By reading the pamphlets of the times, which, to
attain certain ends, were scattered profusely over the European con-
tinent, he became imbued with the most silly prejudices and had
conceived the most erroneous opinions concerning the Society of Jesus.
The principle, however, which he lays down in his report to the King
on the Canadian question is perfectly sound. The report bears date of
the 6th December, 1772, and in it he says:

" No other right can be founded on conquest but that of regulating
the political and civil government of the country, leaving to the indi-
viduals the enjoyment of their property, and of all privileges not
inconsistent with the security of the conquest." (Christie, vol. L, p. 29.

It was afterwards in the application of this principle that he erred ;
for evidently according to him the existence of the Jesuits in Canada
" was inconsistent with the security of the conquest."

On the 26ih May, 1774, in the House of Commons, he further
developed his thought : " You can preserve the acquisitions in time of
peace, so as to give to the country subdued as much tranquility, as
much property, and as much enjoyment of that property, as is con-
sistent with your own safety ; and this it is your duty to do. The
principles of humanity, the principles of natural justice demand this at
our hands, as a recompense for the evils of war ; and not that we
should aggravate those evils hy a total subversion of all those particular
forms and habits, to which the conquered party have been for ages
attached. Upon this principle, sir, 1 do maintain that it would have
been most unjust to have relapsed into the barbarity of former ages ;
and this we should have done, if we had, with a rough stroke, said to
the Canadians that the laws of Canada should be totally obliterated ;
that the rights, civil and ecclesiastical, of that country, should be
framed according to those of England, as being better for that people
than their own." Cavendish — Debates of the House of Commons in
1774, pages 51, 52.

Thurlow (Attorney-General) was a different sort of man, with broad
views and a well balanced mind. His principles were as sound as those
of Wedderburne. Being consistent he was not afraid to face them in
their logical conclusions. On the 22nd January, 1773, his report on
Canadian affairs was handed in to His Majesty. In it he rehearses the
different opinions of jurists and endorses the following : "They under-
stand the right acquired by conquest, to be merely the right of empire,
but not to Atend beyond that, to the liberty and property of indivi-
duals, from which they draw this consequence, that no change ougl^t

to be made in the former laws beyond what shall be fairly thought
necesssry to establish and secure the sovereignty of the conqueror.
This idea they think confirmed by the practice of nations and the most
approved opinions." And further on : " The Canadians seem to have
been strictly entitled by the jn* gentium to their property, as they
possessed it upon capitulation and treaty of peace, together with all
its qualites and incidents, by tenure or otherwise ; for both which they
were to expect Your Majesty's gracious protection.

" It seems a necessary consequence that all those laws by which that
property was created, defined and secured must be continued to them."
(Christie vol. I. pages 53 and 59.)

In his speech in the Commons on the 26th May, 1774, he clearly
defines his opinion on the rights of conquest. " Now, sir, a proclama-
tion (7th October, 1763), conceived in this general form, and applied
to countries the most distant, not in situation only, but in history,
character and constitution from each other, will scarcely, I believe, be
considered as a very well studied act of state, but as necessarv imme-
diately after the conquest. But, however proper that might be with
respect to new parts of such acquisitions as were not peopled before,
yet, if it is to be considered as creating an English constit"tion ; if it is
to be considered as importing Knglish laws into a country already
settled, and habitually governed by other laws, I take it to be an act
of the grossest and absurdest and cruellest tyranny that a conquering
nation ever ])ractised over a conquered country. Look back, sir, to
every page of history, and I defy you to produce a single instance in
which a conqueror went to take away from a conquered province, by
one rough stroke, the whole of their constitution, the whole of their
laws under which they lived, and to impose a new idea of right and
, wrong, of which they could not discern the means or the end, but
would find themselves at a loss and be at an expense greater than indivi-
duals could afford, in order to inform themstlves whether they were
right or wrong. This was a sort of cruelty, which I believe was never
practised, and never ought to be. My notion, with regard to this matter,
I will venture to thrOw out as crude and general. To enter into the
subject fully would require more discussion than tne nature of such a
debate as this will admit of. My notion is, that it is a change of sovere-
ignty. You acquired a new country ; you acqnired a new people ; but
you do not state the right of conquest as giving you a right to goods and
chattels. I'hat would be slavery and extreme misery. In order to make
the acquisition either available or secure, this seems to be the line that
ought to be followed; you ought to change thu.^e laws only which
relate to the French sovereignty, and in their place substitute laws
which should relate to the new sovereign ; but with respect to all other
laws, all other customs a ud institutions whatever, which are indifferent
to the state of subjects and sovereign, hunmnity, justice and wisdom
equally advise you to leave them to the people just as they were."
(Debates, etc., 1774, page 29, 30.)

" If the English laws would be a prejudice to the Canadians it would
be absurd tyranny and barbarity to carry over ail the laws of this
country, by which they would lose the comfort of their property, and
in some cases the possession of it." (Debates, etc., 1774, page 32.) He

had in view especially the penal laws.

Much more might be given in the same strain from these authorities,
but there must be an end to all things. Now no other conclusion can
possibly be arrived at, from the foregoing extracts, save that by the
rights of conquest in general, that is, of any conquest not limited dr
qualified by treaty stipulations, the property of individuals, and the
laws which create and protect it are sacred and inviolable. That
furthermore the sole measiireof the extent of the conquering sovereign's
rights is the extent of the rights of the conquered sovereign whom he
succeeds.

What is said and the property of individuals holds good with regard
to the property of bodies corporate. They exist before the law as a
moral entity or person, with their rights, as to property, duly sanctioned
by the sovereign.

Individuality and immortality : two essential properties

of a body corporate.

" A corporation," says Mr, Kyd, quoted by Angell and Ames, " or
body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection of many individuals
united in one body under special denomination, having perpetual
succession under an artificial form, and vested, by the policy of the
law, with a capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual,
particularly of taking and granting property, contracting obligations,
and of suing and being sued; of enjoying privileges and immunities in
common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less
extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the nowers con-
ferred upon it, either at the time of its creation or at any subsequent
period of its existence." (Treatise on the law of private cori)oraiions
aggregate by Joseph K. Angell and Samuel Ames. Introduction, tv:^ 2.)

Chief Justice Marshall, in common with other authorities, holds it to
be *' an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in con-
templation of law Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only
those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either
expressly or as identical to its very existence. These are such as are
supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it is created.
Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may
be allowed, individuality ; properties by which a perpetual succession
of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a siui^le

ndividual The great object of an incorporation is to bestow

the character and properties of individuality on a collective and chang-
ing body of men " (Ibid. sec. 3.)

Kyd's definition is adopted verbatim by Chitty also. (Prerogatives
of the Crown, ch. VIII, No. 2.)

8. (a)

The Society of Jesus in Canada was a body corporate

from 1678. Its right of property was protected

by the Law of Nations.

That the Society of Jesus was a body corporate under French rule
is undeniable. The Royal letters patent are itill extant at Quebec and
establish this fact. Chitty in his " Prerogatives of the Crown," etc.,
(ch. viii., edit. London, 1S20, i)g. 122 , assures us that •' the exclusive
right of the Crown to institute corporations and the necessity for its
express or implied consent to their existence is undoubted. * * The
King's consent to the formation of a corporation is expressly given in
the case of his granting a charter. This need not be done by any par-
ticular form of words * * * a ^ift of land from the kin^ to the burgesses,
citizens or commonalty, of such a place, ukis conceived to be sufficient
io incorporate t/ietn under %ncViCo\\&cUvtno.\wt. Confr. Ibid , pg. 124.)
Nor is it necessary that the charter should expressly confer these powers,
without which a collective body of men cannot be a corporation, such
as the power of suing and being sued, and to take and grant property j
though such powers are in general expressly given." etc., etc.

The following is an extract of the diploma or letters patent of Louis
XIV, of May 12, 1678:

" Louis, par la grace de Dieu, Roy de France et de Navarre. A tons
ceux qui ces presentes lettres verront, salut.

" Nos chers et bien aimez ics Religicux de la Compa'^nie de. Jesus
risidant en nostre pays de la Nouvelle France, nous ont fait remonstrer
qu'en consideration du zele quils ont tcsmoigne pour la conversion
des sauvages, nos vice-roys, lieutenants generaux et gouverncurs du
dit pays, ensemble les compagnies establies pour le commorce, leur ont
donne en differents temps plusieurs terres dont ils ont jouy, sur ])artie
desquelles ils ont fait construire les bastiments n^cessaires pour leur
college, esglise,et comijiunaute, dans la ville de Quebec, les dites terres
consistantes, scavoir (here follows the enumeration of seigneuries, etc).
Et d'autant que les dites terres, lie"ux, et basiiments n'ont pas ete
amortis, les exposants craignant d'etre troublez en la jouissance d'i( eux,
nous ont tr^s humblement fait supplier qu'il nous ])lust les amortir, et
leur permettre de les tenir en main morte et exempts de nos droits.

" A ces causes, voulant favorablement traiter les exposants, contri-
buer autant qu'il nous sera possible a la plus grande gloire de Dieu,
et a I'etablissement de la religion catholique, apostolique et romaine,
dans le dit pays de Canada, et les obliger a continuer leurs pri^res
pour notre prosperity, et sante et la conservation de cet Estat, de
nostre grace sp^ciale, pleine puissance, et autorite royale, nous avons
agre6, confirme et amorty, agreons, confirmons et amortissons par ces
prdsentes signees par nostre main toutes ces terres et concessions
cydessus declarees... ensemble les bastiments construits sur les dites
terres, sans que les supplians jniissent jamais etre contraits de les mettre
hors de leurs mains, ni qu'ils soient tenus pour ces dits heritages,
lieux et droits, nous payer anciens devoirs et droits, donner homme
vivant et mourant, faire foi et hommage, payer indemnites ou droits de

1^ II

t ;

francs fiefs et nouveaux acquests A nous et a nos successeurs Roys,
dont nous les avgns quittes et exempt6s, quittons et exemptons."
&c., &c.

This instrunnent alone, without its being necessary for me to hunt
up other documenis, constituted the Society of Jesus a body corporate,
and by granting the [)rivilege of holding their property in mortmain
constituted them a corporation for ever.

Therefore, as by the right of conquest in general, as laid down in the
Law of nations, the rights of properly of private individuals are secured,
so also are the rights of the corporation of the Society of Jesus to these
intents and purposes, holding property as an individual.

The letters patent of the French King a solemn contract

of protection with the society. Its obligations

binding on the King of England who

supplants him.

I go further, and say that even were the laws of nations silent on
the point of the inviolability of private property, establising as they do
the principle that, at the conquest, the King of England succeeded the
King of France in the sovereignty of these provinces, he succeeded
him not only in all his prerogatives but also in all his obligations. The
letters patent are a solemn contract, guaranteeing proleetion to the
Society of Jesus. The King of England is equally bound by them. He
accepted the sovereignty of Canada with all its limitations and modi-
fications such as it was.

i^ tf|

h \

Documentary evidence of the exercise of corporate

rights by the Society of Jesus down to the very

year of the capitulation of Quebec.

I may be asked if, in point of fact, the Jesuits exercised their fran-
chise as a corporation down to the very period of the conquest? In
answer J may state : Quebec capitulated on the i8th September, 1859,
and I have lying before me at the present writing an original document
dated the 30th March of that jame year. It bears the signature of the
Superior of the society in Canada, that of his procurator and the seal
of the corporation. This instrument appoints the Sieur Mathieu
Hianveu as assistant notary for their seigneuries of Notre Dame des
Anges, St. Gabriel, Sillery and Belair, and enjoins on Paul Antoine
Francois La Nouillet, judge prevost, to see that Sieur Hianveu be duly
qualified and sworn into office. Therefore, down to the conquest they
remained a corporate body, which the King of England, neither by his
own prerogative, nor by that of the King of F'rance, was empowered
to destroy.

29
8. (a)

The royal instructions of 1791, to suppress the Jesuits,
are a peremtory proof of their corporate exis-
tence down to that date at least.

Though of but secondary importance, the date Tanuaty3, 1755, given
in the Gazkttk leader of the 22nd, does not seem to me correct,
neither does that of 1774, given on page 40 of "An acctuint of the
endowments for education in Lower Canada, London 13th June, 1838,
Norman and Skeen, printers." 'I'he author's name is not mentioned,
but it is known to be the work of Mr. Andrew Stuart (then a lawyci in
Quebec) and of Will. Badgley.

Here are my grounds for contesting the accuracy <if the d^^le given.
It is a historical fict that on the 21st October, 1788, the committee of
the Legislative Council, in their report to Lord Dorchester, declared
that as the Jesuits had retained possession of their estates under the
eye and with the sanction of the ('rown, an enactment became necessary,
whereby the King should confirm the Poiie's abolition of the. order,
and declare its property vested in the Crown.

In his " Institutions de 1 histoire." 1855, pnge 340, Bibaud, jeune,
alludes to this report. The date of which, however, by a typographical
error is given as 1785. The same report of the Legislature council,
with its correct date is discussed in the report of Alexander Gray and
Jenkin Williams, 15 May, 1790.

(The French version of the report of 1824, page 103, gives the i8th
May as the date of the (iray-Williams rejjort).

Now, had the civil sujijjression of the Society of Jesus taken place
in 1 774, this report of the Legislative Council would lose its significance,
and would have been a meaningless proceeding.

There is, however, a more positive proof that the date I give is the
correct one. In the library of Parliament, Ottawa (E. No. 421) may
be found a very useful repertory entitled " Chisholm's Papers." On
])age 151 there occurs this passage in the Royal Instructions of the
J 6th September, 1791 : It is our will and pleasure... that the Society
of Jesuits be suppressed and dissolved, and no lo ger continued as a
body corporate or politic, and all their possessions and property shall
be vested in us for such purposes as we may hereafter think fit to
direct and appoint ; but we think fit to declare our Royal intention to
be that the present members of the said society as established at Quebec
shall be allowed sufilkient stipends and provisions during their natural
lives."

Were it established beyond cavil that in the year of grace 1791 an
attempt at assassination was made upon the person of His Gracious
Majesty Cieorge III., it would be a little more than strong presumptive
evidence that his Majesty was yet alive in that year. Here we have a
document emanating from the highest authority of the realm, ordering
that the society of Jesuits be dissolved and suppressed, and no longer
continued as a body corporate and politic. They, therefore, had con-
tinued up to that date a body corporate. The same august authority

declares it to be his intention that the present members of the said
society, as established at Quebec., be allowed sufficient stipends, etc.
This has very much the appearance of recognizing, in a public official
document, the fact that at that time there existed a society established
at Quebec, and that certain of His Majesty subjects were recognized
members of that society. Would your contributor deem it too rash for
me to conclude that not only before the conquest, but at the time of
the capitulation of Montreal and the whole of the Canada, they were a
body corporate, as provision is made for them as a body in that docu-
ment of solemn import; and that for at least thirty-two years they
continued a body corporate under English rule? What had the Jesuits
done in the meantime to justify so unwarrantable an invasion of their
civil rights of holding property etc , rights most solemnly guaranteed
them at the capitulation of the country!^

In my next communication, Mr, Editor, I shall resume my line of
reasoning as outlined in your issue of the 25th, continuing from the
IX. heading, i, e., '* The Jesuits' Estate are Church Property."

Yours, etc.,

U. E. L.

ANSWER TO THE " C.kZY.T'YY.^'— Continued

{The G.AZETTE, July 3 1888.)

li i'

To the Editor of the Gazette :

Sir, — Allow me to make a few remarks on your leader cf the 27th
before I resume my argument on the Jesuits' estates. And at the out-
set it is encouraging to be assured " that there is nothing you desire
more than the candid discussion of every point of this important ques-
tion ". I promise you that I shall not touch upon any but "vital
issues ", provided no dissertations on subjects ad captandum be dragged
in ; otherwise I cannot be expected to leave the public under a false
impression.

The writer of your leader of the 27th is considerate enough to style
my elucubrations in the Star '• a quagmire of irrelevant matter ". Epi-
gramatical, but not to the point. It would have been more so to have
answered them before giving them hard names. I conceive that it is
dangerous to venture incautiously on unsafe ground. ¥ox facilis descen-
sus averni — but to extricate oneself? Surely the writer could not have
had this in his mind's eye ?

Following the lead of English statesmen and jurisconsults, I deci-
dedly differ from the writer, who, rather than fare the inevitable, would
bring his case into a court of his own choosing, and magisterially wave
back the unanimous array of commentators on international and con-
stitutional law. Municipal law would suit his purpose better; perhaps
he would prefer the police court. It would not peihaps be wholly out
of place, as the person who executed the seizin at Quebec in 1800
signed himself Ja. Sheppard, sheriff.

The expedient is easily seen through ; it is much easier to minimize
than to answer. 'J'here where he assures us "every principle is disputed,
this particular principle at least, that the rights of sovereignty exclu-
sively are the conqueror's ", is disputed by no one responsible or " irre-
sponsible writer". In such case pleaders, who expect a ])atient hearing,
either adduce stronger authority or show that the principles or facts
on which adverse decisions are based are flimsy or groundless.

We are willing to learn something at the writer's school in the mat-
ter of journalistic etiquette — we seldom rush into print. He, veteran
that he is, has been bronzed under smiling rays of popular approval,
which even now do not cease to beam upon him. But sometimes a
patient is allowed to go off on a point of professional etiquette. Mean-
while it is of all importance for me, I shall not say, to be formally
introduced to an amiable adversary, but to ascertain on what ground
he stands, otherwise the debate would be interminable. The way of
putting a case, the same as to his intrinsic merits, should be quite dif-
ferent before a Protestant and a Catholic public. There is no question,
as far as I am concerned, either of religious or party prejudice. Let your
writer again consult my letter, and he will see that it was on the suppo-
sition that my readers were of the same faith as myself that I referred
them to a Catholic historical authority. Were they not Catholics, as
the writer evidently is, since he deprecates the semi-Protestant method
of investigation, my promise was simply to appeal to their reasoning
faculties and their sense of justice. This purpose I am carrying out,
and would ere now have accomi)lished it had not irrclcvivit matter been
brought up for discussion.

And since your writer leads mc to the consideration of the ecclesias-
tical aspect of the question, without deigning to reply directly to the
insinuation that I \vould array Pope against Pope or emphasize the
"unworthy" motives of Clement XIV., I would add that in the brief
of suppression he has led us to understand that the motives of his
action were not all enumerated, since he says : " And urged by other
motives which the laws of prudence and a wise administration of the
universal Chuich suggest and which we keep looked within our breast.'*

A few paragraphs further on the Hoiy Father forbids •* under penalty
of excommunication to us reserved and to our successors to dare to
attack and insult, on the occasion of this suppression, either privately
or publicly, orally or in writing, by discussion, obliquy or affront, or
by any manifestation or contempt any one, and least of all, those who
were members of the society."

If there be secret reasons of staiC administration, there must needs
be also secret reasons of Church admmistration. And while cordially
agreeing with the writer that it is not becoming to affect more of Ca-
tholicism than the Pope, I would say also that, in this matter, there is
no need to be more of a Jesuit than the Jesuits themselves. The
memory of Clement XIV, aspersed by Catholic and even some Pro-
testant authors, has found no more fearless nor skilful defenders than
the members of the Society. And if there is one point of history clearer
than another, it is that for the members of a society whose only reason
of existing was the good of holy Church, that same reason, that the
destruction of their order would be of more profit to her, was sufficient
to reconcile them to their fate. When they heard from the lips of the
Supreme Pontiff, that in face of such fierce opposition their usefulness
was gone for the nonce, without one word of murmur or complaint
they gently submitted to the decree of destruction, ascribing, as I now
do, but one great impelling motive for the act, the desire in the heart
of the Pontiff to serve the Church of God.

I reserve a few more points of the same leader for future remarks.

The Jesuits' Estates are Church Property.

To ascertain what was the nature of the Jesuits' estates, it is indis-
pensable to refer to the constitution of the Catholic Church as it was
at the time of the conquest and is still. It might not seem necessary
to many to prove that the Jesuits' estates were church property ; but
the leader of the 22nd makes a sad medley of canon law when acknow-
ledging that no prescription can run against the Church, he adds :
*' But the order of Jesuits is not the Church of Rome. The Church of
Rome existed before the Jesuits, it existed during their suppression,
etc. " Very good, all that may be granted, and still it would remain
true that the Jesuits' estates are church property. To give the why and
the wherefore would lead me too far. But to assure ourselves of the
fact we have but to open any treatise on canon law. Let us take
Maupied for instance (Jur. Can. Comp., P. IV, L. 12, c. 5, 4 to) :

" Dividuntur etiam beneficia in saecularia et regularia, Saecularia
sunt, quae non nisi saecularibus clericis, regularia, quae tantum regula
ribus tribuuntur, unde eorum nomen tractum est. Hinc abbatiae.
cseteraque officia claustralia suis propriis donata re iditibus, beneficia
sunt regularia, ac talia generatim censentur omnia, quae a regularibus
regi consueverunt. "

I scarcely expect to see any one denying that the Jesuits, a men-
dicant order, are regular clerks of the Church of Rome. Their estates
therefore are classed among " bona ecclesiae " as regular benefices.

9. (a and b).

Amherst in his endeavors to secure the Jesuits' estates obtained from
the " avocats de Paris " a "consultation " in which these unscrupulous
members of the French law made, generally speaking, mince-meat of
canon law so great was their zeal for their client. I have a full copy
before me, and the document is dated 12th November, 1788. They
are, however, therein constrained to acknowledge that " He (the King
of England) cannot take possession of Canadian benefices if any were
annexed to the colleges, at the time of the Jesuits, since he has bound
himself by the treaty of peace to follow, with regard to Canada, the
laws which governed that province before the conquest, and that these
laws did not sanction the holding of these benefices by the King of
France, for whom, in the enjoyment of these rights the King of Great
Britain is substituted. Thus the King of England can neither take
them himself nor consequently grant them to Lord Amherst." In other
words, the King of England succeeds the King of France in the sov-
ereignty of the country, "with all its limitations and modifications. "
The right of the King of France over Church property was limited ; so
in the same degree is that of the King of England."

10.

The general right of Conquest imposes the duty of
maintaining the existing laws of property.

This proposition is but a corollary of what has been stated and sus-
tained by legal authority under heading 6 and 7, and of what will be
further developed under heading 12. If, however, something more
precise be required I am ready to undertake to point out the logical
nexus.

l! )

11.

The Quebec Act, inasmuch as it restricts treaty stipula-
tions, is ultra vires. It in no wise affects vested
rights; hence inapplicable to the case.

A right may be either legal or legitimate. Laws may be framed
which invade the rights of private citizens or corporations so as forcibly
to disposess them of their rightful property, and may be carried into
effect in s[)ite of all remonstrance. Their title ceases to be legal,
as it is ignored by the unjust law, but it does not cease to be legitimate,
as it based on justice.

The Act 14 George III, ch. 83, otherwise the " Quebec Act," is a
striking instance of this. It was passed in 1774, and in its Art. VIII,
it decrees : — " It is also established by the authority aforesaid that all
the Canadian subjects of His Majesty in the said Province of Quebec
(religious orders and communities alone excepted) may also preserve
'-.eir properties and possessions, etc., etc."

But as I have clearly proven that the Jesuits, by the laws of nations,
(and will prove by the capitulations and by the treaty) had a full right in
justice to their property and estates, the 8th article of this act is frus*
trated by its third, which I give in French, as I have not at hand the
English version :

" Pourvu aussi, et il est etabli, que rien de ce qui est contenu dans
cet acte ne s'etendra, ou s'entendra s'etendre a annuler, changer ou
alterer aucuns droits, titres ou possessions, resultant de quelque con-
cession, ou d'autres que ce soit, d'aucunes terres dans la dite province,
ou provinces y joignantes, et que les dits titres resteront en force, et
auront le meme effet, comme si cet acte n'eClt jamais ete fait. "

So that, as far as concerns the rights of the Jesuits, we are authorized
to look upon this act as if it never existed, or at least as inapplicable.*

But it is moreover u//ra vires, if it mean that the Jesuits are not to
be preserved in their property ; for a statute cannot annul a treaty.
Chief Justice Jay, a most eminent jurist, in the celebrated case of
Henfieki, tried in the city of Richmond, on the 22nd May, 1793,
observed : " Treaties betwen independent nations are contracts or
bargains which derive all their force and obligations from mutual
consent and agreement and consequently, when once fairly made and

• We mifiht have added that the clause in parenthesis, being merely negative^
could not affect the rights of the possessors, as it confers the estates on no others.

properly concluded, cannot be altered or annulled by one of the parties
without the consent and concurrence of the other. Wide is the dif-
ference between treaties and statutes — we may negotiate and make
contracts with other nations, but we can neither legislate for them nor
they for us to vacate or modify treaties at discretion. Treaties, there-
fore, necessarily become the supreme law of the land. The peace,
prosperity and reputation of the United States will always greatly
depend on their fidelity to their engagements, and every virtuous
citizen (for every citizen is a party to them) will concur in observing
and executing them with honor and good faith, and that whether they
be made with nations respectable and important, or with nations weak
and inconsiderable, our obligation to keep our faith results from our
having pledged it and not from the character or description of the state-
or people to whom neither impunity nor the right of retaliation can i
sanctify perfidy, for although perfidy may deserve chastisement, yet
it can never merit imitation. "

If, therefore, the act of Quebec is to be read as a step towards the
gradual absorption of the Jesuits' estates, it ^s a clear case of infringe-
ment of treaty stipulations, and as De Vattel said : " The following
rule is belter calculated * * * at once to cut short all chicanery.
If he who could and ought to have explained himself clearly and fully
has not done it, it is the worse for him. He cannot be allowed to in-
troduce subsequent restrictions which he has not expressed * * *
The equity of this rule is glaringly obvious, and its necessity is not loss-
evident. " (Chitty's De Vattel. B. II, ch. XVII, sec. 264.) (I prescind
entirely from the known maxims of Canon Law, with regard to Church
property.) Chitty himself confirms this point. See Prerogatives, etc.,
ch. Ill, pg. 20, edit. London, 1820 : " Nor can the King legally dis-
regard or violate the articles on which the country is surrendered or
ceded ; but such articles are sacred and mviolable according to their
true intent and meaning. " Page 30: " The King may preclude him , olf
from the exercise of his prerogative legislative authority in the lust
instance over a conquered or ceded country, by promising to ve-^^ in
it an assembly of the inhabitants, and a governor, or by any mea ure
of a similar nature, etc. " Therefore a fortiori he may preclude himself
from confiscating private properly, even had he a right olherwis. to
do so. This he did, through his general, at the capitulation of Canula.-

12.

By title of the Conquest of Canada in particular the

right of the Jesuits to their property,

was unassailable.

I '

If the case in favor of the Jesuits be already so strong, supported
by the laws of nations, defining the rights of conquests in general, it
gains a hundred-fold when we conu to deal with the inviolability of
their property as guaranteed by the capitulations and treaty.

I shall quote here mainly from English authorities, as the question,
if not a domestic one, is one I would not like to have settled by the
opinion of foreigners, lest they be deemed partial.

Let me first set before the eyes of your readers extracts from the
capitulations and the treaty, which have some bearing on the question.
I have not at hand the English version of the Capitulation of Quebec,
so I am obliged to quote from the French.

Capitulation de Quebec (i8 septembre 1759) : Art. II. Que les
habitants soient conserves dans la possession de leurs mai:ions, biens,
effets et privileges— Accorde en mettant bas les armes.

Art. VI. Que I'exercice de la Religion Catholique, Apostolique et
Romaine sera conserv6, que Ton donnera des sauve-gardes aux mai-
sons ecclesiastiques et religieuses, particulierement a Monseigneur
TEvSque de Quebec, etc., etc. — Libre exercice a la Religion Romaine,
sauve-gardes a toutes personnes religieuses, ainsi qu'a Monseigneur
rfiv6que, qui pourra venir exercer librement et avec decence, les
fonctions de son etat, lorsqu'il le jugera a propos, jusqu'a ce que la
possesion du Canada ait ete decidee entre Sa Majeste Britannique et
Sa Majeste Tres Chretienne.

Capitulation of Montreal (and of he whole province, 8th Sept.,
lyGb) : "Art. XXVII. The free exercise of the Catholic, Apostolic
and Roman Religion shall subsist entire, etc., etc.
. Answer — "Granted as to the free exercise of their religion. The obliga-
tion of paying tithes to the priests will depend on the King's pleasure.

" Art. XXXII. The communities of nuns shall be preserved in their
constitution and privileges. They shall be exempted from lodging any
military, and it shall be forbid to trouble them in their religious exer-
cises, or to enter their monasteries j safeguards shall even be given
them if they desire them.

Answer — " Granted.

iga-
lure.
their
any
:xer-
iven

" Art. XXXIII. The preceding article shall likewise be executed
with regard to the communities of Jesuits and Recollets, and to the
house of the priests of St. Sulpice at Montreal. This last, and the
Jesuits, shall preserve their right to nominate to certain curacies and
missions, as heretofore.

Answer — " Refused till the King's pleasure be known.

** Art. XXXIV. All the communities, and all the priests shall pre-
serve their movables, the property and revenues of the signiories
and other estates which they possess in the colony of what nature
soever they be, and the same estates shall be preserved in their privi-
leges, rights, honors and exemptions.

Answer — "Granted.

" Art. XXXV. If the canons, priests, missionaries, the priests of the
Seminary of the foreign missions, and of St. Suli)ice, as well as the
Jesuits and the Recollets, choose to go to France, passage shall be
granted them in His Britannic Majesty's ships, and they shall all have
leave to sell, in whole or in part, the estates and movables which they
possess in the Colonies, either to the French or to the English, without
the least hindrance or obstacle from the British Government.

" They may take with or send to France the produce of what nature
soever it be of the said goods sold, paying the freight as mentioned in
the 26th article. And such of the said priests who choose to go this
year shall be victualled during the passage at the expense of His Bri-
tannic Majesty, and shall take with them their baggage.

Answer — " They shall be masters to dispose of their estates, and to
send the produce thereof, as well as their persons and all that belongs
to them, to France.

" Att. XXXVII. Lords of manors (les seigneurs de terre). military
and civil officers, etc., etc., shall preserve the entire peaceable projierty
and possession of their goods movable and immovable, merchandise,
etc., shall keep and sell them as well to the French as English ; to take
away produce of them .... whenever thty shall judge proper
to go to France, paying freight as in the 26th article.

Answer — " Granted as in the 26th article.

"Art. XLVI. Inhabitants and merchants to enjoy all the privileges
granted to subjects of His Britannic Majesty.

Answer — " Granted.

" Article L. The present capitulation shall be inviolably executed in
all its articles, and bona fide on both sides, notwithstanding any infrac-
tion and any other pretext, with regard to preceding capitulations, and
without power to make reprisals.

Answer — " Granted. "

t ,

Treaty of peace — " His Britannic Majesty, on his side, agrees to
grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada.
He will consequently give the most effectual order that his new Roman
Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according
■to the rights of the Roman Church, as far as the laws of Great Britain
permit. "

" His Britannic Majesty also agrees that the French inhabitants,
■or others, who had been the subjects of the Most Christian King in
Canada, may retire with all safety and freedom, wherever they shall
think proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to subjects of
His Britannic Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their
persons, without being restrained in their emigration, under any pre-
tence whatsoever, except that of debts or of criminal prosecution ; the
term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of eighteen
months, to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratifica-
tion of the present treaty. "

I shali be as concise as the subject will allow in reasoning on the
text of the foregoing documents.

In the 2nd Art. of the capitulation of Quebec " The inhabitants
(no exception whatever being made detrimental to the rights of the
Jesuits to their property) are to be preserved in possession of their
houses, goods, effects and privileges. "

In the 32nd, 33rd and 34th Art. of the capitulation of Montreal, and
of the whole province, communities are mentioned three times. In the
two foremost articles, certain privileges are granted and refused to
certain specified communities. In the last mentioned article certain
privileges are secured to all the communities alike, in contradistinction
to what was refused and granted in the two preceding articles. In other
words, all communities and all the priests shall preserve their move-
ables, the property and revenues of the Seigniories, and other estates
which they possess in the colony of what nature soever they be, etc.
The Jesuits forming a community and being priests, and not being tfe
/acfo (ormMy excluded (which they could not be de jure according to
the laws of nations^, are entitled to the full befiefit of this article.

What was refused with a proviso in the XXXIII Article

of the Capitulation of Montreal ? Interpretation

of Treaty Stipulations.

You will no doubt say that Art. 33 refuses them certain privileges
till the king's pleasure be known, I shall not ask here, after what I
have already said, what right Amherst had to refuse any one of the
points mentioned. But I maintain that the refusal, with its proviso,

10,

falls upon the latter part of the 33rd article.

That the refusal fell upon the last clause is certain. For Burton,
the Lieut.-Governor'of Three Rivers, wrote to Amherst but two months
after the capitulation, the 19th of November, to complain that F. de
Glapion had ordered Roubaud, who had disgraced himself with the
Indians of St Frangois, to make room for a more worthy successor,
*' without," Amherst says, " having given the least notice. As soon as
I heard of it I put a stop to it, looking on it as a breach of the 33rd
and 40th Art. of capitulation." (See Canadian Archives, Ottawa, B,

21— I, P- 33)-

The XL. Art. closes thus : " The actual vicars-general, and the
bishop, when the Episcopal See shall be filled, shall have leave to send
them (the Indians) new missionnaries when they shall judge it necessary."

*' Answer — Granted, except the last article which has been already
refused."

The refusal did not fall upon the first part of Art. 33, if it must be
distorted so as to mean that the Jesuits could not continue to hold
their estates (which interpretation would be indeed overstrained) for
the reason that after the 34th Art. Amherst simply wrote " Granted,"
whilst if the above interpretation is to be maintained, he should have
written : " Granted, except for the Jesuit community, holding their
estates, which was already refused in the 33rd Art."

Now, putting the thing ai its 7ii6rst, what, according to the canons
laid down for the interpretation of treaties, was refused with a proviso
in the 33rd. art. ?

Grotius gives this canon : " Voici encore une rdgle qui est fr^quem-
ment d'usage dans I'interpretation des Traites de Paix. Toutes les
fois qu'on se rapporte sur certains articles, a quelque article precedent,
ou a quelque ancien Traits auquel on renvoie, toutes les qualites, ou
les conditions exprimees dans I'article precedent ou dans I'ancien
Traite, sont censees repetdes comme devant avoir Heu dans celui dont
il s'agit" (Grotius, liv. II, chap. XX, sec. XXIV, No. i.) ' We have
simply to repeat the Art 32, adapting it to the Jesuits, etc. " The
communities of Jesuits, Recollets and Sulpicians shall not be preserved
in their constitution and privileges {t/ic 'aiding 0/ property is a right.^
They shall not continue to observe their rules. They shall not be ex-
empted from lodgmg any military, and it shall not be forbid to trouble
them in their religious exercises,or to enter their monasteries ; safeguards
shall not be given them when they desire it. The Sulpicians and the Jesuits
shall not preserve their right to nominate to certain curacies and mis-
sions as heretofore." Though the whole of this in its complex is pal-
pably absurd, as the refusal may fall on one clause only, no mention is

p !i

ilii

'I ;

made in it of their not being preserved in the peaceable possession of
their estates,

I said, taking the thing at its worst, which the conquered are cer-
tainly not obliged nor the conqueror allowed to do :

" Lorsqu'il y a quelque chose de douteux et d'ambigu dans une
clause rinterpretation doit se faire plutot au prejudice qu'a I'avantage
de celui qui a lui-m6me prescrit les conditions du Traite. (Note.)
C'est la niaxime que posait autrefois Hannibal : £sf quidem ejus qui
dat, non qui petit, conditioner dicere pads. C'est-a-dire, pour I'ordinaire,
du plus puissant, de m6me que les articles d'un contrat de vente s'ex-
pliquent au prejudice du vendeur. (Note.) Cela est decide par le
Droit Romain : Veteribus placet, pactioneni obscurant, vei anibiguam
venditor i et qui locavit, nocere ; in quorum fuit potcstate legem aperti-
us conscriberc. En effet il pouvait I'expliquer plus clairement, s'il ne
I'a pas fait, tant pis pour lui. L'autre etait en droit d'interpreter a son
avantage des terines et des expressions susceptibles de plusic-ur sens.
On pent rapporter ici ce que dit Aristote : Qu'en matiere d'amitiees
contractees par un principe d'interSt, I'utilite de celui qui re^oit est la
mesure de ce qui est du." (Grolius, I iv. ii, ch. XX, sec. 26.)

De Vattel, is equally emphatic in the rule he gives : " In case of
doubt, the interi)retation goes against him who prescribed the terms of
the treaty, for as it was in some measure dictated by him, it was his
own fault if he neglected to express himself more clearly, and by ex-
tending or restricting the signification of the expressions to that mean-
ing which is least favorable to him, vve either do him no injury, or we
only do him that to which he has wilfully exposed himself ; whereas,
by adopting a contrary mode of interpretation, we would incur the risk
of converting vague or ambiguous terms into so many snares to entrap
the weaker party in the contract, who has been obliged to subscribe to
what the stronger had dictated." (Chitly's de Vattel, Law of Nations,.
B. IV. Ch. III.", sec. 32.)

" Articles of a treaty stand sometimes in need of interpretation ; in
which case the rule we have already given elsewhere must be first ob-
served. To wit, the more favorable the thing is the more should the
meaning of the terms be extended ; on the contrary, the less favorable
the more should the sense be restricted. Considering mere natural
law, there is nothing more favorable than that which tends to secure
to each one his own, or what he has a right to. Thus ambiguous
clauses should be explained after this fashion, that he whose cause is
just, should lose nothing, etc." (GrotiusB. H., ch. XX., sec. 11, N. 1.2.)

Of course, I do not expect that there. will be any quibbling concern-
ing the term treaty in the foregoing quotations, as we are here discuss-
ing a capitulation. They are certainly not identical in every case, but
are so taken in the matter under consideration. It is evident from the
following :

" It is very certain, that, in order to discover the true meaning of
the contract, attention ought principally to be paid to the words of the
promising party. For he vohintarily binds himself by his words ; and
we take for true against him what he has sufficiently declared. This
question seems to have originated from the manner in which conven-
tions are sometimes made — the one parly offers the conditions and the
other accepts them ; that is to say, the former proposes and he
requires that the other shall oblige hmi-elf to perform, and the latter
declares the obligation into which he really enters. Ifthe words of
him who acce])ts the conditions bear relation to the words of him who
offers them, it is certainly true that we ought to lay our i)rincipal stress
on the expressions of the latter, but this is because the person promis-
ing is considered as merely repeating them in order to form his pro-
mise. The capitulatioiis of besieged towns may here serve us for an
exami)le. The besieged party proposes the conditions on which he is
willing to surrender the j^Iace; the besieger accepts them; the ex-
pressions L»f the former lay no obligation on the latter, unless so far as
he .idoi)ls them. He who accepts the conditions is in reality the pro-
mising i)arty, and it is in his words that we ought to seek for the true
meaning of the articles, whether he has himself chosen and formed the
expressions, or adopted those of the other i)arty, by referring to them
in his promise. But we still must bear in mind the maxim above laid
down, viz., that what he has suOicientiy declared is to be taken as true
against him." (Chitty's de Vattel, 13. II., ch. xvii., sec. 267.)

This shows that what I have said is applicable indiscriminately to
treaties and to capitulations., and, moreover, further confirms my
point ; for what the besieger has sufficiently, nay very distinctly de-
clared in the 34 art., I take to be true against him, viz., that with all
other communities the Jesuits were to preserve the property and reve-
nues of the Seigniories and other estates, etc., and we conclude with
De Vattel that : " We ought to interpret his obscure or equivocal ex-
pressions in such a manner that they may agree with those clear and
unequivocal terms which he has elsewhere used, either in the same
deed or on some other similar occasion." (Ibid. 3. II. ch. XVII., i^ 284.)

Brought up in the admiration of England and of everything P2nglish,
my first impressions of her chequered history were that never had she,
nor never was she capable of violating her sacred promises once duly
pledged. My boyish ideas, as those, no doubt, of the young genera-
tion rising around us, though not formulated with all the precise-
ness. of a De Vattel, might, however, be rendered in his words :

" Let us simply observe, that an evidently false interpretation is the
grossest imaginable violation of the faith of treaties. He that resorts to
such an expedient,either impudently sports with that sacred faith, or evin-
ces his inward conviction of the degree of moral turpitude annexed to
the violation of it; he wishes to act a dishonest part, and yet preserve

Ji J HI lU. w«

the character of an honest man ; he is a puritanical impostor, who ag-
gravates his crime by the addition of a detestahle hypocrisy. * * *"
" Our faith may be tacitly pledged as well as expressly ; it is suffi-
cient that it be pledged, in order to become obligatory ; the manner
can make no difference in the case, the tacit pledging of faith is founded
on a tacit consent ; and a tacit consent is that which is, by fair ' 'Auc-
tion, inferred from our actions. Thus, as Grotius observes {] . c.
24; sec. I), whatever is included in the nature of certain acts .,'hich
are agreed upon is tacitly comprehended in the agreement, or in other
words, everything which is indispensably necessary to give effect to the
articles agreed on is tacitly granted." (Chiity's de Vattel — Law of Na-
tions, B. II. ch. 15, sec. 233).

What England owes to the descendants of the heroic handful, headed
1 y de Montcalm and de Levis, who abandoned by their own mother
country, hoped against hope, and defended to the last their hearth-
stones and their altars, must be defined not by the Treaty, taken alone,
but by Treaty and Capitulations taken in the co;.iplex. For the latter
are as sacred as the former :

" Since the general of an army and the Governor of a town ^ be
naturally invested with all the powers necessary for theexercis eir

respective functions, we have a right to presume that they pcsess
those powers, and that of concluding a capitulation is certainly one of
the number, especially when they cannot wait for the sovereign's order.
A treaty made by them on that subjet is therefore valid and binds the
sovereigns in whose names and by whose authority the respective com-
manders have acted." (Chitty's de Vattel, B. Ill ; c. XVI, sec. 261).

Their articles are' not cancelled by a definitive treaty ujiless it be
clearly so stated and agreed upon. " In things favorable (in interpret-
ing treaties) it is better to pass beyond that point, than not to reach it ;
in things odious, it is better not to reach it than to pass beyond it.
(Ibid. B., II; c. 17 ; sec. 300).

" Whatever tends to change the present state of things is also to be
ranked in the class of odious things ; for the proprietor cannot be de-
prived of his right, except so far, precisely, as he relinquishes it on his
part ; and in case of doubt, the presumption is in favor of the posses-
sor. It is less repugnant to equity to withhold from the owner a pos-
session which he has lost through his own neglect, than to strip the
just possessor of what lawfully belongs to him. In the interpreta-
tion, therefore, we ought rather to hazard the former inconvenience
than the latter. Here also may be applied, in many cases, the rule we
have mentioned in section 301, that the party who endeavors to avoid
a loss has a better cause to support than he who aims at obtaining an
advantage." (Ibid. sec. 305).

By whom the wrong was perpetrated.

These, Mr. Editor, are no doubt your sentiments also, and those of
the honest public. And if any of us were called upon to act as arbi-
ters in a case in which we have no interest at stake, our natural sense
of equity would supply our deficiency in technical training, and prompt
us to adjudicate according to these notions.

And no doubt we all thought that no reproach could belaid, on that
score, at the doors of our own Mother Country. At least it was my
own settled conviction, until, in studying more closely the history of
this colony, 1 was rudely startled by the fact that an injustice had been
done by some one in her name. It was not done by the law officers
in England, who for thirty years refused to legalize the proposed spo-
liation, avowing that they could not determine over what properties of
the Order of Jesuits His Majesty might claim full control, and which
he could consequently legally grant to Lord Amhert's heirs. The ini-
quity was consummated on the advice and with the concurrence of a
handful of men within the limits of this province, men who had not at
heart, the true intei sts of their sovereign nor of their country.

To my mind the "'aning of the capitulations and treaty has always
been perfectly cleai nd if I lave gone into these considerations, it is
rather out of deference for a preconceived notion, that as the estates
were taken by the Government, the capitulations or treaty must in
some way have sanctioned the seizure.

I would say that Amherst, a blunt soldier, knew and cared very lit-
tle about the constitution and rules of the Jesuit;, nor was he a man to
wish uselessly to molpst them in their reli^io.is exercises. lUit he
needed barracks for his troops, and he, with others, fondly entertained
the hope, which events proved to be delusive, of seeing the realization
of a pet plan of the Government, that of supplanting the bishops or
ecclesiastical authorities in the appointment to benefices. This was
all he wished to secure in his conditional refus-al of the thirty-third
article.

English Authorities on the rights of Religious Orders in
Canada to their property as secured by treaty.

These are my own personal conclusions from the canons concerning
the interpretation of treaties; but I promised to quote our own Eng-
lish authorities on what was and what was not stipulated in the same

capitulations and subsequent definitive treaty. And in this I want
my purpose to be clearly understood, for I maintain that even had the
King of England the power, by his mere prerogative, on the occasion
of the conquest, to confiscate the Jesuits' estates, which he had not, he
clearly yielded that power through his general and plenipotentiary.

Thuri.ow — (Report to His Majesty, 22 January, T773.) " On the
8th of September, 1760, thecou try capitulat. d in terms which gave to
Your Majesty all that belonged to the French King ; and preserved
all their property, real and personal, in the fullest extent, not only to
private individuals, but to the corporation of the West India company,
and to the missionaries, priests, canons, convents, etc., with liberty to
dispose of it by sale if they should want to leave the country. The
free exercise of their religion by the laity, and of their function by their
clergy, was also reserved."

^■! li

|l It

" The whole of these terms were stipulated on the icth of February
1763, in the definitive of peace, etc." (Christie, Vol. i, pg. 48.)
Again : " . . . and if this general title (rights of conquest as de-
termined by the Law of Nations) to such moderation could be doubted,
they" ithe jurists whose opinion he endorsed) " look upon it to be a
necessary consequence of the capitulation and treaty alluded to before,
by which a large grant was made to them of their property and per-
sonal liberty, which seem to draw after them the l.iws by which they
were created, defined and protected, and which contain all the idea
they have of either." (Ibid. pg. 53.)

Though I am fully alive to the fact that this communication is al-
ready voluminous and the quotations copious, I cannot pass oyer in
silence the closing passage of his report :

"Although the foregoing ob':crvations should be thought just, as a
general idea, yet circumstances may be supposed, under wliich it would
admit some exceptions and qualifications. The conqueror succeeded
to the sovereignty in a title at least as full and as strong as the con-,
quered can set up to their private rights and ancient usages.

" Hence would follow every change in the form of Government
which th-" conqueror should think essentially necessary to establish his
sovereigi: authority and assure the obedience of his subjects. This
might possibly produce some alteration in the laws, especially those
which relate to crimes against the state, religion, revenue and other
articles of police, and in the form of magistracy.

" But it would also follow that such a change should not be made
without some actual and urgent necessity, whici^. real wisdom could not
overlook or neglect ; not that ideal necessity which ingenious spe-
culation may always create by possible supposition, remote inference
and forced argument ; not that necessity of assimilating a conquered
country, in the article of laws and government to the metropolitan

state, or to the older provinces which other accidents attached to the
empire, for the sake of creating a harmony and uniformity in the sev-
eral parts of the empire, unattainable and, as I think, useless if it could
be attained ; not the necessity of stripping from the lawyer's argument
all resort to the learned decisions of the Parliament of Paris, for fear
of keeping up the historical idea of the origin of theit laws ; not the ne-
cessity of gratifying the unprinciple and impracticable expectations of
those few among your Majesty's subject who tnay accidentally r.'sort
thither, and expect to find all the different laws of the different places
from which they come ; nor, according to my simple judgment, any
species of necessity svhich I have heard urged for abolishing the laws
and government of Canada." (Ibid. pg. 6i.)

Here are the broad views and sound principles of the man, whose
erudition and manliness raised him later on to the peerage. In June,
1778, he succeeded Lord Apsley as lord high chancellor of F^ngland.

His report is the outcome of reflection and research. Jn it the
warmth of his expresssions is tempered by the thought that he is ad-
dressing his sovereign. But if we wish to measure the dejith of his
convictions, we must listen to him on the floor of the house, endeavor-
ing to safeguard the honor of England and the inviolability of treaty
stipulations :

" When it (Canada) was taken, gentlemen will be so good as to re-
collect u])on what terms it was taken. Not only all the French who
resided theie had eighteen months to remove with all their moveable
effects, and such as they could not remove, they v.ere enabled to sell,
but it was expressly stipulated that every Canadian should have the
full enjoyment of all his property, particularly the religious orders of
the Canadians, and that the free exercise of the Roman Catholic reli-
gion should be continued. And the definitive treaty of peace, if you
examine it as far as it relates to Canada, by the cession of the late
King of France to the Crown of Great J>ritam, was made in favor of
l)roperiy ; m;ide in favor of religion ; made in favor of the several reli-
gious ordcrsy (Cavendish — UeLales, etc., 1774. pg. 27, 28.)

There is a true ring of conviction in these words, and no room for
doubt or hesitancy ; yet in them is embodied the legal opinion of the
highest authority on these matters in England at the time in which they
were uttered. And how can he speak so positively of the treaty, as
confirmatory of the capitulation, since the divers articles of the latter
are not rch. arsed in full, and the good pleasure of the King has appa-
rently not been made known as to several of the articles ? The King's
silence is rightly interpreted to mean that he can take no exception to
one who signed, in his name, without overstejiping his powers, arti-
cles of capitulation which become then inviolable. Things remain as

they were, if in provisions, as to his assent, the King remains silent;
in which case, the general maxim finds its application : melior est con-
ditio possidentis.

However this right oi' possession is indirectly confirmed by the
treaty, when for the Jesuits and others it was made facultative or
optional to sell their estates. They were not, of course, obliged to do
so, but de facto the Society of Jesus, on the 5th May, 1764, sold 172
arpents, a large portion of St. La»vrence ward in Montreal, to sieur
Plessis Belair (See Terrier des Seigneurs de Montreal, at that date),
and this sale was effected with due authorization. " Vente par le Supe-
rieur des J^suites de la mission de Montreal, autorisee par acte de jus-
tice a Charles Plessis Belair i
chives, Ottawa, series Q., vol.

^ d'une terre, etc." (See Canadian Ar-
50, A. page 188.)

Another contract of donation was passed by the Jesuits in favor of
the Ursulines of Quebec as late as the 24th April, 1788. (See report
1824, page 123).

In the report of two commissioners of the nine appointed to ascer-
tain, among other points, what portion of the Jesuits' estates the King
might in justice grant to Lord Amherst, and as rehearsed in the

report of Alexander Gray and J. Williams, it is said : " lis (le? com-
missaires) observent aussi qu'il est de notori6td publique que par diff6-
rents jugements des cours de justice en cette Province ils (les Jesuites)
ont ete maintenus dans leur droits, et qu'a leur connaissance ils conti-
nuent a ])osseder tontes les dites terres, a I'exceptien d'une partie du
College de Quebec, maintenant occupd comme magasin des provisions
du Roi, et comme casernes pour une partie de la garnison." (Rap.
1824, p. 93».

Nor can any adverse conclut'on be drawn from the clause in the
treaty, even if it affected the matter in hand, and which provides for
the execution of the terms of the treaty " as far as the laivs of Great
Britain permit''

English penal and common law as such do not hold in

the Colonies.

For the penal laws had no existence whatever in Canada. Chitty goes
still further : — " Hence it is clear that, generally speaking, the com-
mon law of England does not, as such, hold ni the
British colonies," (Prerogat, ch. HI, page 32.) Therefore it would
not follow that because tde Jesuits vveie an illegal society in England
they were illegal also in Canada.

Lord North, the then premier, effectually disposed of that objection
m his speech in the House of Commons on the 26th May 1774- «. it

establish he hP'"-°" '^ rr "^^">' ^'^'^ ^''^y'''' ^hat the b/st way to
establish the happiness of the inhabitants is to give them their own
laws as far as relates to their own possessions. Their possess on s were
marked out to them at the time of the treaty ; to give^hem those l"'/

likewise is L m^re than .t 1 1 ^^Z^^^^S^ I'y I e^fy *' j^

th Sws 0-f Grr/lf 7'"V"'' ^"'-^^^ ''• ^°^^' ^h-' ^« no'dou^fthat
tne Jaws of Great Britain do permit the very full and free exercise nf

any religion, different from that of the Church of England In 'nv of

S CatdT" ' rSeTnJh' } '^^^"'^"'' ^^^^ ''' °"Sht notto "extend Xm
to Lanada. (See Debates 1 7 7 4, Pg. 1 1 and 1 2. Conf. also page 63. }

There yet remains the question of escheat.

Yours, etc.,

Montreal, 28th June, 1888.

U. E. L.

ANSWER TO THE "GAZETTE,"_C^,,//«^,^.

( T/ie Gazette, /u/j> 5 18S8. J

To the Editor of the Gazette :
.SiR,_I have greatly condensed this last portion of my argument in

avor of the cla.ms of the Society of Jesus to their old estates I hope
I have not sacrificed clearness to brevity; but I feel that should I give
It in extenso, I would be trespassing on your valuable space. It will be
sufficient, however to mark out the main outline of the reasoning for

13.

The title by escheat is not vaUd, nor was it urged in the
matter of the Jesuits' Estates.

According to civil law, and where church property is not protected
by canon law or by treaty, the King at the demise of the last heir, or

S 1 11

member of a corporation, is said to become possessor by escheat.
This does not absohitely hold good in the case of religious or eleemo-
synary corporations, even according to English law, as behests and
endowments revert to the original donors. But the case of the Jesuits'
estates is complicated by the fact that the King of England, by the
laws of nations and treaty stipulations, could claim as his own those
rights only the King of France enjoyed, and as the latter could have no
claim on vacant ecclesiastical property, the King of Eiigland very
logically had none.

Be these reasons ever so cogent, the most tangible however is that
by an unjustifiable inhibition to receive new members into the order,
on the part of the administration, all title through escheat is invalidated,
as far as the actual holders of the Jesuits' estates are concerned. In
their case resort may be had to ordinary law remedies.

A corporate body cannot be destroyed by the ruler, in
virtue of his Royal prerogative alone.

Neither was the King of Francee nor the King of England in virtue
of his Royal prerogative alone empowered to destroy a corporation he
had once sanctioned, and to deprive it of its franchise. Now preventing
the Society from receiving new members was gradually but surely to
destroy it.

Here are the principles accepted by jurists who treat of this matter:

" In its more extensive sense the term ' franchise' signifies every
description of political right which a freeman may enjoy and exercise.
Being derived from the Crown, these franchises can in general only
arise and be claimed by royal grant or by prescription which supposes
It. They may be vested either in natural persons or bodies politic, in
one man or in many. But the same identical franchise that has been
before granted to one cannot be granted to another for that would
prejudice the former grant. It is a clear ])rinciple that the King can-
not by his mere prerogative diminish or destroy immunities once con-
ferred and vested in a sul)ject by royal grant. " fChitty, on the Pre-
rogatives ot the Crown, C.h. VIII., No. I. page 119.J

" It is admitted on all hands that the charter by which a body is

incor])orated must be accepted as it is offered that they may

reject a new charter /// toto is indubitable ; because the King cannot
take away, abridge or alter liberties or privileges granted by him or his
predecessor without the consent of the individuals holding them."
(Ibid. No 2, pg. 125.)

" It is a principle in law that the King is bound by his own or his
.ancestors' grants, and cannot therefore, by his mere prerogative take
away any vested immunities and privileges. But a corporation may
be dissolved by surrendering its franchise into the hands of the King
though legal dissolution is not occasioned thereby, and the charter
operates till the surrender be enrolled, because the king can take nothing
but by matter of record without enrolement. (Ibid. p. 132.)

14.

Proof that the Crown inhibited the Jesuits from receiving
new members. Consequently the title of the province
to the estates by escheat untenable.

As we have already made good, on the best legal authority, that it
is not within the mere prerogative of the Crown to diminish or destroy
immunities once conferred on corporations, nor take away, abridge,
nor alter any liberties or privileges granted by him or his predecessors
fjos. Chitty, Prerogatives of the Crown, ch. 8. Edit. London, 1820, p.
119, 125, 132J; and as the Society of Jesus was a recognized body
corporate, as previously proven, the action of the Imperial authorities
in preventing the accession of new members was ultra zvm and wholly
unwarrani.ible. Any subsequent advantage accruing to the Crown
from such an illegal proceeding is invalid in law.

It remains simply to show that such was the case. As a matter of
fact, it is a historical certainty that after the conquest no new members
were received into the Society of Jesus ; that this was the result of an
inhibition on the par4; of the Crown is proven by the two following
documents. ' ^

On the 15th November, 1772, Mgr. Briand, bishop of Quebec, in
reference to the Jesuits, thus wrote to Cardinal Castelli : " The English
have not molested thcni in Canada and together witii the
Recollets, they here serve the church with great edification. But
neither the former nor the latter have leave to receive new subjects.
I have asked that permission of the King of Great Britain, in an
address signed by the clergy and the people. I fear much that
I shall not obtain it, for two years have already gone by, and I have
received no answer." {Archives de I'Archeveche, Quebecj The i)ro-
hibition was renewed later on in 1791.

In the Royal instructions of the 16th September of that year the
following passage occurs : "It is also our will and pleasure that all
other religious seminaries and communities (that of the Jesuits only
excepted) do for the present and until we can be more fully informed
of the true state of them, and how far thiey are or are not essential to
the free exercise of the religion of the church of Rome, as allowed

?tKnB<Mn*r*

within our said province, remain upon their present establishments.
But you are not to allow the admission of any new members into any
of the said societies (the religious communities of women only excepted)
without our express orders, for that purpose." (Chisholm's Papers
p. 150 — Lib. of Parliament E. No. 421.) The Crown in consequence
did not in right, through escheat, become owner of the property at the
death of P6re Casot.

We said, moreover, that the title by escheat was not urged in the
seizure of the Jesuits' estates.

The writ of seizin, signed by Robert S. Milnes, lieutenant-governor,

and addressed to the sheriff of the district of Quebec, sets forth :

" Whereas, all and every, the estat«''s and property, moveable and immo-
veable situate in Canada, which did heretofore belong to the late Order
of Jesuits have, since the year of our Lord Christ one thousand seven
hundred and sixty, been and now are by law vested in us under and
by virtue of the Conquest of Canada."

When the property was conveyed to the provincial Government, the
same title was alleged : — "The tenure of which is stated to be the con-
quest of 1769 and the provincial act. 17 Vic, ch. 11." (Signed) Edw.
Blake. Ottawa, May 10, 1876.

CONCLUSION.

Before the law the claim of the Jesuits to these estates

is valid.

The claim of the province to these estates is legally null, whilst the
claim to them by the society is legally valid. •

1. Canonically, the Society of Jesus, as at present established in the
province, 't& the identical corporation or moral person it was at the
time of the conquest.

2. But it is not even necessary to have recourse to this line of rea-
soning, though it be conclusive We ail know that legal principles on
private corporations cover sufficiently the case. So that, allowing for
argument's sake, though not granting, what the writer of the leader
asserted, that the society ceased to exist in the province, we still have
at least the same corporation revived.

MoRAWETZ Private Corporations. 1882. Sec. 566 " Thus when.
* * "^ * on the other hand, it is clear that if it be the intention of the
parties to revive an old corporation, whose charter has expired, or
which has become dissolved by loss of an integral part, the company
will continue lo be liable for its debts after as before dissolution or re-

vivor." (Note). Mr. Justice Field said

* * *

" When a new form

is: given to an old municipal corporation, or such a corporation is reor-

ganized under a new charter, taking in its new organization the place
of the old one, embracing substantially the same territory, it will be
presumed that the legislature intended a continued existence of the
same corporation, although different powers are possessed under the
new charter, and different officers administer its affairs ; and in the
absence of express provision for their payment otherwise, it will also
be presumed in such case that the legislature intended that the lia-
bilities as well as the rights of property of the corporation in its old
form should accompany the corporation in its reorganization * * *
re Broughton vs. Pensecola. 93 U. ST 266-^70."

See also Milner vs. Pensecola, 2 Woods 632 ; Goulding vs. Clark,
34 N. R. 148 ; Lea vs. American, Atlantic Canal Co., 3 Abb. Pr. N.
S. 12.

Anokll and .\mes, 185S. Law of private corporations aggregate,
sec. 780 : " Where a corporation has been dissolved in England, the
King may, either by grant or by proclamation under the great seal, re-
vive or renovate the old corporation or by grant or charter create a
new one in its place. And the old corporation may be revived with
the old or new set of corporators : and at the same time new powers
may be superadded. If the old corporation be revived, all its rights
and responsibilities are of course revived with it : but if the grant
operate as a new creation, the new corporation cannot be subject to
the liabilities nor possess the rights of the old. An authorized merger
of the rights of the old corporation in the new one by legislative act, is
not such a dissolution, of the corporation, as to throw back the real
estate of the former upon the grantors, or to free the corporation from
an obligation to pay its debts. It may become therefore a question
of great practical importance, whether the charter be one of revival
merely, or a charter of new incorporation. This is not to be deter-
mined by the collateral facts, that the name of both corporations, the
new and the old, tha,t the officers and a majority of the members are
the same, and that the business of the old corporation was for a time
done, and its debts paid by the new one. It is certainly true, says Mr.
Justice Story, that a corporation may retain its personal identity,
although its members are perpetually changing ; for it is its artificial
character, power, and franchises, and not the natural character of its
members, which constitute that identity. And for the same reason
corporations may be different, although the names, the officers, and the
members of each are the same. " To ascertain whethf^r a charter
creates a new corporation, or merely continues the existence of an old
one, we must look to its terms and give them a construction consistent
with the legislative intent and the intent 0/ the corporators. Upon the
ground of the intent of the corporators, where a religious society, incor-
porated under a general act, having mislaid their certificate of incor-
poration, elected new trustees for the purpose of incorporation, and
filed a new certificate — the purpose of the new election and certificate
being to preserve the old corporation, and not to change or dissolve
it— this proceeding was decided to operate merely a continuance of
the old corporation."

■ ■»P' .1-*<H<. J IB

Accept, Mr. Editor, the expression of my very sincere thanks for
the liberality and kindness with which you have opened your columns

Yours, etc.,.

U. E. L.

Montreal, July 3, 1S88.

If5 ■ i

THE "GA/.KTTE'S" LAST WORD.

(The Gazette, July 7.)

THE JESUITS ESTATaS.

Our correspondent " U. E. L." has completed his argument, and, in
noticing now some points which were not covered by our proceeding
articles, we cannot help repeating our conviction that the matter is
really a simple one, and that a great dtal of unnecessary ground has
been travelled over. The mass of material heaped up has the effect of
covering the really important points. It was not necessary to cite
authors to prove that the custom of civilized nations is to respect
private property, or any property not obnoxious to the fundamental
law of the conquering state. The opinions of lawyers also are of little
use unless the statement of the question proposed is given, and even
then they do not make law. The main questions are of fact.

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

IJ:

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

The extensive reading of " U. E. L." has not been well digested.
The fundamental error into which he has fallen is this, to quote his
own words — " the King of England succeeded the King of P'rance in
" the sovereignty of these provinces, he succeeded him not only in all
" his prerogatives but in all his obligations — he accepted the sovereignty
" of Canada, \*ith all its limitations and modifications, such as it was."
This principle of law is, in effect, that by the conquest of a country the
civil, criminal and ecclesiastical laws of the concpiered country are
imposed upon the conquerors. The victor "■accepts" the sovereignty,
and the defeated king imposes his laws. If this were the case a king
ought to enquire into the laws of a country before conquering it.
Either he or his subject might get into serious ditficiilties by victory.
For instance, by the laws of Canada at the conquest (vol. 2 Edits., p.
72) Protestants could not assemble for the exercise of their religion,
and it was equally illegal for them to winter in Canada. Amherst did
not think to stipulate for the liberty of the Protestant religion. It was,
therefore, his duty upon conquering this country to dismiss his chaplains
and send his troops to Mass. When the snow fell he was bound by the
" Law of Nations " to turn Catholic or evacuate the country. Other
inconveniences might arise. For instance, in Picton's case one of the
counsel observed — '' by the laws respecting religion in the very country
" (Spain) from which this island (Trinidad) has been conquered, a
" heretic may be burned ; and, by the laws of the same country, any
" person converting a Roman Catholic to the Protestant religion might
*' be burned likewise. If, therefore, the chaplain of any one of his
" Majesty regiments had converted this poor girl to the Protestant
" faith. General Picton had a right, — nay it^vonhi have been his duty, —
" to have burned this reverend person, upon the principle for which
" his counsel must contend to-day." The Chief Justice, Lord Ellenbo-
rough, said : " The laws that are repugnant to the rights of the conquer-

If-

< SI

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

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

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

■dated Oct. 7th, 1763, until further action was taken, introduced into
Canada the English laws ; and under it English courts were established.
We cited in a previous article the Royal commissions and instructions
to the governors, and we would now cite the Commission to Chief
Justice Hey, September 25, 1766, in which he was ordered to decide
causes criminal or civil, *' according to the laws and customs of that
■" part of our Kingdom of Great Britain called England and regulations
" of our province of Quebec hereafter to be made." These laws were
found during the ten years they were administered, to be very unsuit.
able to the country, and the French-Canadians petitioned the Crown
for the " restoration of their ancient laws, privileges and customs, as
" well as for all the rights and privileges of other subjects of the King."
This is the occasion upon which Thurlow made the report which
" U. E. 1-." cites with so much approval. The case of the Jesuits' estates
was just one of these "exceptions and qualifications " he speaks of, as
■appears by the excepting of them in the 8th clause of the Act for
which he, as attorney-general, was mainly responsible, and which he
carried through the house. He and Mr. Wedderburne drew up reports
upon which the Quebec bill was drafted. The latter was solicitor-
general and afterwards lord chancellor, as Lord Loughborough. His
report is in the same volume of Christie, p. 37. It touches on the very
])oint of discussion as follows : — " The establishment of the first (the
" Jesuits) is not only incompatible with the constitution of an English
■" province, but with every other possible form of civil society. By the
" rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every government." " They
•" are not owners of their estates but trustees for purposes dependent
"upon the pleasure of a foreigner, the general of their order. I'hree
" great Catholic states have upon grounds of policy, expelled them. It
" would be singular if the first Protestant state in Europe should
" protect an establishment that ere now must have ceased in Canada
" had the French Government continued." " It is, therefore, equally
" just and expedient, in this instance, to assert the sovereignty of the
*' King and to declare the lands of the Jesuits are vested in His
" Majesty, allowing at the same time to the Jesuits now residing in
" Canada liberal pensions out of the incomes of their estates." Guided
iby these reports, and by the petitions of the French Canadians, and
their evidence before the house, Parliament passed the Quebec Act in
1774 which continued the criminal law of England, restored the civil
law of France, gave to the Roman Church an establishment by law,
modified the oaths of the I. Eliz., cap. I, which bore upon the
■consciences of Catholics ; but excepted the lands of the religious orders.
These consequently still remained under the legislative authority of the

t ;

■V i

I ^

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

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

It is made a reproach that we have slurred over the position of the
Jesuits at the time of the cession. Let us not do so any longer. We
thought we might have spared our readers this ; and, first, we would
remark that the grant which " U. E. L.". cites as their title does not
purport to create a corporation. It is to the " Jesuits residing in
Canada, "who are not separated and erected into a body corporate
thereby, nor did they ever hold these lands separately from the Society
of Jesus or have succession within themselves. It was proved bv 'he
constitutions of the society, which it was compelled to p-'oduc
Parliament of Paris in the great trial of Father Lp ti
property of the Society was held in solidarity, and
the Society was made to pay the debts of the Martj. c hou vl

shall not, however, dwell upon this trial. The facts ^ ill be found in
Ency. Brit.., vol. 13, Art. '^^ Jesuits!' by any curious reader. vVe wish,
specially to invite attention to the legal status of the Society as given
in Isambert — Recueil geniral des ancicnnes lois Fran^aises, vol. 22. At
p. 312, Aug, 6, 1761, is an " ArrSt du Parlement " which orders that
])ending a trial " de I'abus," then going on, all subjects of the King of
whatever condition, are forbidden to enter the said society in any of
its grades. All Jesuits are also forbidden to receive foreign members
into their houses. Then, at p. 320, follows an " Ordonnance " of the

King suspending for a year the execution of the " Arrfit." One year
later, Aug. 6, 1762. p. 328, is another " Arrfit," which recites the
previous one with much other matter, pronounces " le dit institut inad-
" missible par sa nature dans tout 6tat police comme contraire au
" droit nature!, attentatoire a toute autonl6 spirituelle et temporelle et
'* tendant a introduire dans I'eglise et dans les etats, sous le voile sp6-
" cieux d'un institut rcligicux, non un ordre qui aspire veritablemcnt
" et uniquement a la perfection evangeliquc, niais plutot un corps
" politique, dont I'essence consiste dans une activite continuelle pour
" parvenir par toutes sortes de voies di^ectes ou indirectes, sourdes
" ou publiques, d'abord a une indeperidance absolue, et successive-

** ment a I'usurpation de toute autorite

I) ^ 4! ((

un corps miniense — qui

** ne pensant et n'agissant que i)ar I'impulsion d'un seul homnie * *
" concentree dans le gouvernement du seul general." The "ArrSt"
after much similar matter, coutinues : " vJrdonne ; que toutes les depo-
'* sitions provisoires contenues en TarrSt, rendu par notre dite cour
" seront et demeureront definitives et seront executees dans toutes
" leurs parties, etc." The Arrfit then goes on to command all Jesuits
to quit their colleges, and abandon their habit, and forbids them to
obey or correspond with their General, or to unite in society. And
immediately thereupon full execution was taken out. In a Royal
declaration, at p. 401, l.etters Patent dated February 2, 1763, are
cited, showing that the estates were then in the hands of royal officers.
On Ficbruary 10, 1763, the definitive treaty of cession was made, and
at that dale there were no French Jesuits by the laws of France.
Strange teachers were in most of their colleges, and the Jesuits were
beseeching in vain the intervention of the King. That came at last in
the Edict at p. 424, November, 1764, which ordered " toutes proce-
dures criminelles" lo cease, but ordained, " voulons et nous plait cpi'a
*' I'avenir la Societe n'ait plus lieu dans notre royaume, pays, terres,
" etc., de notre obeissance." The Arrdt of August, 1762, had its full
efficacy. We answer " U. E. L.," therefore, that at the date of the
treaty of cession the Jesuits had no legal status by French law — that
their property was under seizure by the Government of France, and
we answer thit any ''spoliation" in this matter was the act of His
Most Christian Majesty the King of France.

We turn now to the Brief, Dominus ac Redcmpior nosier. " U. E. L."
touches warily upon it. It is dangerous ground, but he quotes Arch-
bishop de Beaumont to the effect that it is nothing but a " personal and
" private judgment of Clement XIV-"

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

-rrrr

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

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

Since this discussion commenced the resolutions and papers have
been brought down and debated, and we are glad to observe that any
l^gal title existing in the present Society is distinctly denied. The
definite settlement of ama3s of i)roperty is to be disturbed on the plea
of a moral claim. We are informed by " U. E. L." that every trans-
action relating to it is, and has been, void ab initio. We would ])oint
out that the civil and religious right of the minority rest on no firmer
basis, and if the conscience of the majority can overturn, by the
retrocession of Laprairie Common, transactions based upon so many
public acts, there can be no finality in anything. The power of the purs-;
is with the Legislative and they could have made what grant they
chose without taking this melliod of aspersing the memory of a fair-
minded tolerant body of men who settled the destinies of this country
so that party divisions never coincided with religious creeds. This
revolutionary method of reopening dead issues and declaring funda-
mental laws to be ultra vires is one well calculated in coming years to
be a " bitter pill " for more people than Protestants.

N. B. — What follows was politely refused insertion on the ])lea that
the Gazette was entitled to the last word, that the controversy had
really closed and that no good purpose could be served by reopening
it. In its leader of June 27th it had however declared: " There is
nothing we desire more than the candid discussion of every point of
this important question." But in the last leader of July 7th new issues
were raised, a change of front attempted, plain arguments distorted,
and universally acknowledged historical facts denied. We therefore
publish the rejected letter, and in a postscrii>t will lay bare the sophistry
of the Gazette, whose main object throughout the discussion was, as a
party paper, rather to injure the Hon. Mr. Mercier than to secure the

hi-

[fji

:i;

If'

i:;

triumph of truth. A line of conduct in marked contrast to that adopted
by the Star.

To the Editor of the Gazette.

Sir, — Driven from the region of principles, your contributor in the
Gazette of July 7, would take refuge in the region of facts : " The
opinions of lawyers (he should say law authorities), are of little use
unless the statement of the question proposed is given, and even then
they do not make law. The main questions are of fact." My facts
thus far seem to have been pretty stubborn, as your contributor has
not yet caught me tripping, and the public has already learned how
unreliable historically are many of his assumed facts. They have faded
away into unsubstantial fancies.

It is my intention o resume to-day my work of demolition, and, at
the same time, show how unreliable are his authorities. One day's
labor, however, will not cover all the ground.

" It 7luis not necessary to cite authors to prove that the cusiom of
civilized nations is to respect private property, or any property not
obnoxious to the fundamental law of the conquering state."

It is refreshing to be able to put on record this one concession of
my amiable friend, writing in ihe Gazette of the 7th. It is not much,
but still it is something ; it gives at least a diagnosis of the case. He
is of the Wedderburne temperament, and suffering from jesuitophobia.
In principle, Wedderburne's was of a milder type. Under heading 6
and 7 {Gazette, June 28.) I cjuote his principle as quite correct : " No
other right can be founded on conquest but that of regulating the
political and civil government of the country, leaving to the indivi-
duals the enjoyment of their property, and of all privileges not incon-
sistent with the security of the conquest." It was, I said, in the appli-
cation of this principle that he erred, for he evidently deemed the
existence of the Jesuits, as proprietors, in Canada as " inconsistent
with the security of the conquest." Otherwise, after having laid down
the principle, just enunciated, he would be the most inconsistent of
men. Your contributor, according to the same inexorable rule of
dialectics, can now j- ''fy his pleading in favour o<" spoliation only by
affirming that the holding of property by the Jesuits in Canada " was
obnoxious to the fundamental law of the conquering state." And yet
he admits that they, through the generosity of the English Govern-
ment, held property here from the capitulation of Quebec until the
death of Father Casot, a space of forty one years. We have yet to
learn that during that long period the security of the conquest was
jeopardized, or that the fundamental law of Great Britain was shaken.

We might pause, and ask ourselves what a fundamental law of a
State is ? I take it to be one that is essential to the very existence of
the State ; the basis of all, without which the State must crumble as
the house with its foundations undermined or riven ; one which time
and events cannot change without transforming the State into some
other moral entity than itself And yet at the time Wedderburne was
writing, the Jesuits held property in England, and do still. At the time
.your contributor writes, the Jesuits are incorporated again in Canada.
What has now become of the "fundamental law", or is merry England
no longer herself but another ?

Your contributor complacently quotes a portion of a passage from
Wedderburne, whic' I should have quoted in extenso. to show the
palpable absurdity of it, had I not thought your space too precious for
such vagaries, long since dispelled from the minds of serious men.
Let us complete the quotation :

" The Jesuits, however, and the religious houses in France, which
have estates in Canada u'. e. the RecoUeLs, Jesuits and Sulpicians) are
upon a different footing from the others.

" The establishment of the first is not only incompatible with the
constitution of an English province (time has given the lie to this
assertion), but with every other form of civil society." (Frederick 11 of
Protestant Prussia and Catherine of Russia thought otherwise.)

" By the rule of their order the Jesuits are aliens in every (iovern-
meni." (They are the most steadfast supporters of every Government,
and of the form of Government of every country in whicii they reside :
monarchists in England and Can uJa. and republicaiis in tlic United
States. Their rule is no other than the rule of St. Paul, looking upon
every constituted authgriiy as of God, and obeying, in all things tem-
jjoral, their rulers for conscience's sake.)

" Other monastic orders may be tolerated, because, though they are
not useful -subjects, still they are subjects, and make a part of the com-
munity ill employed. (!) The Jesuits form no i)art of the community
(Arrant nonsense).

" They according to their institution neither allow allegiance nor
ol)edience to the prince, but to a foreign power."

This was not the way of thinking of those who closely watched the
working of their institution. Take for instance Sir P.ii,hard Temple,
a Protestant, and Vice-Roy of India. In 1877 he addressed the pupils
of the Jesuits' College, St. Francis Xavier's of Calcutta, in the following
terms :

" Wnerever I go, whether to capital cities, amidst the turmoil and
bustle and activity of civilized life, or to the remote interior of the
country, perhaps amidst scenes of fimine, or sickness, or desolation,

:■

: i.

III,

there I find ministers of the Catholic reh'gion, who by their self-abnega-
tion, by their long enduring patience, by their physical privations, and
by their suffering, hold up the cross of Christ before the eyes of all
men.

" I hope that you, young men and students, will be grateful through-
out all your lives to the reverend pastors and masters who are now
teaching and tending you, who are distinguished by attainments in
theology, divinity, literature and physical science.

" We may not, indeed, claim them for our own nationality ; but still
they are working in the midst of us the British people ; they are bring-
ing you up to be loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of England
and Empress of India.

" Remember that your College bears the honoured, the venerated
name of St. Francis Xavier (a Jesuit), who by devoted energy in the
most sacred of causes, by fervent burning zeal even unto death, was
one of the most remarkable characters that ever adorned the annals of
Christendom. And in your future life and conversation, bear your-
selves in a manner worthy of that great religious community to which
it is your privilege to belong — a community which is found, not only
in one nation, nor in one empire, nor even mi one hemisphere, but
which exists for all nations under heaven, for all languages spoken by
men, and for all climates in the habitable globe." (See Calcutta
Englishman, quoted in the London Tablet. Feb. 17, 1877.)

What Wedderburne meant by owing allegiance to a foreign power
must be, I presume, to the Pope of Rome ; in which case every Catho-
lic bishop, priest and layman might suffer attainder after the same
fashion. Wedderburne continues :

" They are not owners of their estates but trustees dependent upon
the pleasure of a foreigner."

j! i

In my correspondence with the Star I have clearly proven the utter
groundlessness of this assertion. (See Star May 26, June 9' and 16 ;
Pamphlet pages 9, 10, ,t8, 48-50.) I do not intend here to go over
the same ground, as tru is within the reach of every honest inquirer.
But as this objection has been brought up again by your contributor
under another torm, that of the solidarity, or mutual responsibility
of the various houses of the society, I shall add one short documen
to those already given in my correspondence with the Star on that
subject.

Eight of the most celebrated lawyers of Paris were consulted on the
affair of Lavalette and here is their decision :

" Le Conseil estime, d'apres les faits et les moyens d^taill^s dans le
m^moire, que la maison de la Martinique est seule obligee ; que non-

seulement il n'y a point lieu a la solidarity, qui ne peut naitre que d'une
loi ou d'une convention expresse, mais qu'il n'y a aucune sorte d'action
centre les maisons de France ou autres maisons de I'Ordre, et que les
Jesuites ne doivent pas s'attacher a I'inconipetence, leur defense au
fond ne souffrant point de difficulte.

•' Delib^re a Paris, le 6 mars 1761. Signe : L'Herminier, Gillet,
Maillard, Jaboure, de la Monnoie, iiabile, Thevenot, d'Epaule."

But there were other secret, and more powerful influences at work.
Had the Jesuits clung to their right oicovimittimus ihey were protected
by the King ; but trusting to the justice of their cause, and not rightly-
gauging the power and malignity of the Jansenist party in parliament,
they confidingly Drought their case before the latter with the result so
universally known and, later on at least, so universally deplored. But
to return to Wedderburne :

" Three great Catholic States have, upon grounds of policy, expelled
them. It would be singular, if the first Protestant State in Europe
shuuld protect an establishment that ere now must have ceased in
Canada, had the French Government continued."

The ministers who' for the time swayed the destiny of these States

had nothing catholic but the name ; and having got rid of the Jesuits,

their aim was to attack directly the Holy See. The atheists of the day

took in the situation at a glance. D'Alembert wrote to his friend

Voltaire : " Je ne sais ce que deviendra la religion de Jesus ; mais, en
attendant, sa Compagnie est dans de mauvais draps." (CEuvres de
Voltaire T. 48. Lettre 4 mai 1762.)

Mr, Editor, your contributor could fill columns of your journal with
quotations hostile to the Jesuits, and I could easily furnish as much in
their favour. Between us we might fill volumes of cyclopic proportions^
and our controversy would not be a whit nearer the end. Setting aside
therefore what has been written to their jiraise by Von Schlegel, Hal-
lam, Bacon, Leibnitz, Grolius, Hessius, Gretser, Keller, Buffon, Haller,
Muratori, Bancroft, Peramus, Chateaubriand, Carne, Pradie, Dallas
and a hos,t of others, I sha'l ask you to insert the following quotation
less known than others. I choose it, not because it is more to their
praise, but because it evinces in the clearst terms the cause of their
lack of popularity with a certain class. It is an extract from a letter
addressed in the year 1825, by Mr. Kern, a Protestant professor in the
University of Gottingen, to Doctor Tzschirner, in answer to certain
strictures published by the latter against the Jesuits. It runs thus :

" But who are at this day the enemies of the Jesuits ? They are of
two classes, those who do not know them, and atheists and revolu-
tionary philosophers. But every right minded man should admire that

tH*

which is the object of the hatred of such characters ; for we may be
assured that then, either religion, or justice, or subordination is at
stake. The re-establishment of this celebrated order, so far from
causing any disquietude, should, on the contrary, be regarded as a
happy omen for our times. In its organization and its tendency is to
be found the most powerful safeguard against the assaults of the doc-
trines of impiety and insubordination : and this is constantly allowed
even by Protestants themselves. John de Muller goes so far as to say
that " it constitutes a common bulwark of defence for all lawful au-
thority." The Jesuits attack evil in its very root by educating youth
in the fear of God, and in obedience. It is true they will not teach
Protestantism, but have we a right to require that Catholic.-, should
teach other doctrines than those of their own Church ? Have we seen
in times past doctrines issuing from the colleges of the Jesuits similar
to those of our modern schools ? Have they preached up the sovereign-
ty of the people and all its mournful consecjuences, as is done in the
present dav in our Protestant universities ? Hostility to kingly au-
thority has been impdted to them, but of this charge they have been
wholly acquitted by Henry IV., King of France, and at a later period
imder Louis XV, by an assembly of bishops convened by authority of
that Monarch.

"Experience proves to us what rapid progress revolutionary doctrines
have made since the suppression of the Jesuits ; the P^nglish writer,
Dallas, declares that everywhere on the continent the colleges of the
Jesuits are replactd by Philosophical universities, in which faith and
reason have ceased to be united in education. Reason, with all its
errors, is preferred as being that which is most noble in man. Faith
has been abandoned, and impiously derided as superstitious.

" In 1773, Clement XIV suppressed the order of St. Ignatius, In
1793 a King of France was beheaded, and temples were opened to
deified Reason. During two centuries the e/ife of the French noblesse
were educated by the Jesuits, in their college of Clermont at Paris, in
a love of religion, of science and of country. In a brief space, after
the dismissal of these skilful masters, the same college cast upon society
a Robesi)ierre, a Camille Desmoulins, a Tallien, a Noel, a Freron, a
Chenier, with a host of others similarly corrupt. Can it then, after all
this, be a matter of astonishment that the Pope and Catholic princes
should recall men whose services are so much required, and whose
high work has been acknowledged by the great Leibnitz, by Frederick
II, and of whom Bacon has said : "To discover the best mode of
education, the surest way is to consult the schools of the Jesuits."

But it was precisely their influence as educators of youth that Wed-
derburne affected to distrust, so by a new principle in law, unheard of
hitherto in any civilized community, they are to be punished before
hand for possible misdeeds in the future. And bear in mind, Mr
Editor, that he testifies to their good behaviour in the present. Listen
to what he has to say to palliate an act of " spoliation" :

" Uncertain of their tenure in Canada, the Jesuits have hitherto

remained very quiet (this was thirteen years after Quebec capitulated
and eight months before the brief of suppression was drawn up), but
should the establishment be tolerated there, they would soon take the
ascendant of all the other priests ; the education of the Canadians
would be entirely in their hands, aftd averse as they may bt at present
to France, it exceeds any measure of credulity to suppose that they
would ever become truly and systematically friends to Britain.

" It is therefore equally just and expedient in this instance, to assert
the sovereignty of the King, and to declare that the landsof the Jesuits
are vested in his Majesty, allowing, at the same time, to the Jesuits
now residing in Canada, liberal pensions out of the incomes of their
estates."

This is precisely that necessity against which Thurlow, whose report
bears a later date, warns his Majesty when he says : '* Not that ideal
necessity which ingenious speculation may always create by possible
supposition, remote inference and forced argument." More honest
than Wedderburne, he requires, as every unbiassed judge should,
" some actual and urgent necessity, which real wisdom could not over-
look or neglect." Therefore the case of the Jesuits' estates was not
one of these " exceptions and qualifications" spoken of by Thurlow
and insisted on by your contributor.

It was however this act which led Christie (I. page 39), to remark
that ** The Government dealt liberally with them. They were allowed
to die out before it took possession of the estates or interfered with
them, which was not till after the death of Father Casot, the last of the
crder, in 1800." It was this " unparallelled act of generosity" which
excites the admiration of your contributor. We have made away with
his heirs, let us now be generous. Let the old man die in peace and
plenty, but we are sure of the inheritance !

Your contributor might no doubt ask how is it possible that a man
of Wedderburne's standing could be so hopelessly prejudiced against
the order ? He read one side of the question. He took up his pam-
phlet or paper of the day and read the current slander against the
Jesuits, just as any one might have picked up the Gazette of July 6th,
and read, on the first page in bold type : *' Jesuits suspended from
religious ministrations by bishop Lafl^che of Three Rivers" ; in which
paragraph inuendo is not wanting : " Thirty families, it is stated,
refused to attend mass because of their experiences with the fathers."
It is not contradicted on the morrow, nor the next day. All the papers
of the Dominion and the leading ones of New- York copy the thrilling
item. And so the reputation of men and societies is blasted. A tardy,
and perhaps reluctant contradiction comes at last ; but for every twenty

•,,, il:

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

As for Marriot, the friend of Voltaire, added to his intense religious
hatred of the society he was a cynic. To ascertain what manner of
man he was, open the Debates of 1774 and read his examination before
the House in committee (pages 163 and 172). The man did not take
the serious things of life seriously. What did he care for the well being
of his Majesty's new subjects, the Canadians ? After his famous letter
12 May, 1765) to Norton and de Grey, attorney and solicitor general,
written, if you please, in his capacity of King's advocate, and to which
he annexed certain " proofs and extracts" concerning the Constitution
of the Jesuits, and French law, one might be led to imagine that he
knew something of French civil law, of the Constitution of the Jesuits
and Canon law. On these latter, of all hazy notions his are the haziest..
On the former the extent of his knowledge is given by himself.

Asked by a member (Debates, p. 163) Do you understand the French
law ? He answers : I find it very difficult to understand any law. —
Do you know the power of the French King under the constitution of
the French law ? — I do not well understand the constitution of France..
I never was in France. It is very hard foi a foreigner to obtain an
adequate idea of the constitution of another country.

By another member : Do you understand the French law ? — Not
the style of it, nor its forms very well. — What do you mean by the
style of it ? — There is in every country, in which a system of civil laws
is established, a law-la^ guage, as there are, in every art and science,
words and phrases peculiar to them.

Now, Mr. Editor, if there be a law which possesses a style very
peculiar to itself, and unintelligible to one not versed in it, it is Canon
law, and especially that particular portion which relates to reHgious
orders and their constitutions. Yet a foreigner, a layman and a
Huguenot, Marriot does not hesitate to sit in judgment on the consti-
tution of the Jesuits. What wonder then that he makes such egregious
blunders. In his " proofs and extracts" he confounds the Sodality of
the B. V, M. with the Society of Jesus itself, and reckons up its mem-
bers, and this seriously, as Jesuit laymen, married and single, as women
and children, all belonging to the order. (See Report, 1824, French^
Edit. p. 211). From the fact that neither the professed houses, nor
the professed themselves, can enjoy any revenues,and that the General
has a supervision to exercise as to their finances, he concludes " all
the property of these houses of the missions clearly belongs to the
Father General (p. 212) ! He quotes the Bulls of the Popes, confirm-
ing the constitutions of the Jesuits, as a man who does not understand .

Latin. He argues from the fact of the General having jurisdiction over
the whole order, that therefore everything belongs -to him personally I
He emphasizes in one case, that of the houses and missions, the strict
poverty enjoined by the rule, and in the other is forgetful of the fact
that the General also is bound by a solemn vow of poverty, and is in-
capacitated from personally holding any property. He arrogantly as-
sumes to himself the office of teaching canon law to the nineteen popes
who had up to that time solemnly approved all the absurdities, which
existed in his fertile imaginat on only. Page after page of talk even more
silly leads him finally to his goal, and he pompously concludes : " And
it is not astonishing that an institution, which appears to have been
devised with a subtlety more than human, to owerthrow the laws of
every country ecclesiastical or civil, should encounter in the laws of
every country an obstacle to its establishment."

And we might add that it is not astonishing, that Sir Fletcher Nor-
ton and William de Grey, in the teeth of Marriot's all but isolated opi-
nion, that the conqueror may do v^^ry much as he pleases with tiic in-
dividual rights of the conquered, returned a ne,s;ativi' answer (June lo,
1765) to the question put them by the Lords of plantation affairs. This
question was formulated as follows : *

" Are not the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty, residing in
the countries of America ceded to His Majesty, subject in those colo-
nies to the same civil disabilities and penalties, to which Roman Ca-
tholics in the realm are subject by law?" For Marriot was not the
man to give an impartial and reliable decision.

As for Mr. Dunkin's statement I take it to be worth its face value.
Be it so that Vaudreufl strove to insert some other clause in the capi-
tulation, I have no data to authorize me to gainsay his assertion. But
my reasoning is based, not on what might or might not have been ad-
ded f,o the capitulation, not on what Amherst might have intended at
the time, or is made to intend, even as an afterthought, as ten years
elapsed between the capitulation and his petition, but it is based wholly
on the capitulation as it stands, and as we are bound to surmise
what his intention was from the context and according to the received
canons for the interpretation of treaties.

" T/ie title ivliich was given by the King to the old Province of Lower
Canada was not only by conquest but by escheat."

I should like very much to be informed from what document this in-
formation is gleaned. Lord Goderich in announcing the cession of
the Jesuits estates to the old province, on July yih., 1831, makes no

'I J

•J

1 ,

It ;

mention of the title. Neither does Ba'on Aylmer in his speech before
Assembly, on Feb, '25 1832, wherein he refers to Lord Goderich's
despatch. I should be grateful also if informed what the remainder of
the citation of the writ of seizure adds to what I already gave. It
merely confirms what I said previously, that the title was one of con-
quest, the administration looking upon it as a favour " to suffer the

late surviving members to occupy certain parts of the said estates

etc." The sole crumb of comfort seems to be derived from the as-
sumption that Casot's status was not identical with that of " the lae
surviving members of the said late order." This conflicts in no point
with my proposition. At most it would go to show that his Majesty's
advisers in Canada were, like your contributor, misinformed either
with regard to what constitutes a Jesuit, or to the fact of Casot's being
duly qualified as such.

Now I wish to set at rest once for all this question of escheat, though
as I have already made manifest the King had no better right through
escheat than he had by conquest.

Is it historically true that on May 24, 1770, Jeffrey Lord Amherst's
petition, previously made, was referred by the King in Council to the
Lords of the Committee ; — that by them it was r ferred to the board
of trade, who reported back on June 7 ; — and that thereupon the
Lords of the Committee of Council for plantation affairs recommended
as advisable the granting of Lord Amherts's petition ;— that on Nov. 9,
of the same year, the King's order in Council was issued to grant
n>/iaf might be legally granted ; — that the Attorney and Solicitor Gen-
eral, by their report of Dec. 14, 1770, put a stop for a time, for certain
reasons assigned, to further proceedings in the matter ; — that, on the
demise of his uncle, William Pitt Lord Amherst recommenced the al-
ready oft-repeated formality ; — that this game of shuttlecock was kept
up, at intervals, from 1770 down to July the 18, 1799?

The thing is vouched for by endless documents and reports. Now,
I ask your contributor, is he ready to reiterate his assertion {Gazette,
July 7) that " the crown-lawyers in England (I say nothing of Wil-
liams and Gray, in the colony, as their want of legal knowledge or no-
torious lack of principle is clearly established by Messrs. Panet and
Taschereau) — the Crown-lawyers to whom the matter was referred,
reported the Crown's right indubitable but delayed proceedings through
mere difficulties of describing technically the property" ?

If he answer in the affirmative, I say then it was a foregone conclu-
sion to effect a spoliation based solely on the rights of conquest. For
all along, until the latter dates, there were a number of Jesuits surviv-
ing. So there was no question of escheat — and had these minor diffi-

69*

culties been cleared up, according to this theory, the estates would
have passed into the hands of Amherst or his heirs during the lifetime
of these Jesuits.

If he reconsider his assertion, and say that the law-officers of the
Crown could not satisfy themselves that the King had any legal title
to these estates, it is what I have been saying all along, in vindication
of the sense of honour of these same legal advisers to his Majpsty.
The question I affirmed was not a simple one, though your contributor
has not yet opened his eyes to the fact, I: was no doubt owing to
this legal difficulty, and in a great measure to the fearless and able de-
nunciation of Chandler's duplicity, and the incompetency or dishonesty,
just as you prefer, of Williams and Cray on the part of Messrs, Panel
and Taschereau{*) not less than to deCilapion's firm but respectful pro-
test, (f) that the estates were left ostensibly to the province. On July
nth 1803 the King sent a message to the Commons setting forth that
his gracious intentions, in favour of William Pitt Lord Amherst, the
nephew of Jefi"rey, could not be carried out " owing to difficulties aris-
ing from local circumstances." Thereupon the Act. 43 Ceo. Ill c. i5(>
was passed granting an annuity to Amherst's heirs.

The other statement of your contributor is for similar reasons mis-
leading, when he says : " difficulties of describing technically the pro-
perty intervened, and during the delays of enquiry Amherst died, and
the orders to prepare the deeds were cancelled," the latter part being
also historically inaccurate.

" In following the histories jcie/e/I into an error — 'unimportant Jiow-
ever, as Cazot (tied the same year (\S'6>o). He was not a Jesuit. He
was procurditor, but the last Jesuit was Father de Giation."

This was one of Roubaud's cock and-bull stories (See report on
Can, Archives, 1885, p. cxli). To what extent that gentleman's ve-
racity may be relied on, those who are ever so little conversant with
the history of the time can tell. The writer assures us that he "fell
into an error — unimportant however." He alludes no doubt to his
former assertion in the 6\zsi7'/'<? 27 June. "In our issue of Monday
last the names of the Jesuits of the old orde • who remained in Canada
are given. The iast of them Father Casot, died in 1800." (See p. 17.)
This is more or less the correct statement

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

(•) See Report on Education. 1824, p. l.")J (French version),
(t) See Appeu(li.\ A. to this pamphlet.

'' \'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours, etc.,

U. E. L.

Montreal, ir July, 1888.

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

AND THE

JESUITS' ESTATES BILL.

Summary.

The Mail, July 2, 1888, objects to the disposal of the money being
subject to the approval of the Pope, as under the British Consti-
tution no authority outside the Province should control public
money.

Reply : — Objection frivolous. The money ceases to be public
money, when by will of the legislature it has been voted as compen-
sation to Father Turgeon, a British subject and the duly authorized
Procurator of a recognized corporation.

As well might it be said, that a foreign authority exercised control
o\tx public money, when in settlement of the Alabama Claims, a gross
sum was voted by Parliament to be deposited with the U. S. Govern-
ment, with the understanding that special courts of adjudication, within
the United States, should decide as to the validity of individual claims,
and in accordance with such decisions suilable compensation be made..

TEXT OF THE ARTICLE AND REPLY.

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

il:

An Extraordinary Principle.

(i), /// Great Britain there are three recognized estates of the realm,,
the King, the Lords, and the Commons; but in the Province of Quebec^
judging by the procedure with reference to the Jesuits, there are four
estates — the Pope, the Qi. een or her representaiive, the Council, and the
Assembly. ^ -■^-

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

(2). IV/iat are termed the Jesuits' Estates are public property.

Reply : — What are termed Jesuits' Estates are public property in
the same sense as any public money wrongfully acquired by the Crown^
against whom the subject mAy proceed either by petition of right, by
monstrans dc droit or by traverse of office. And «;he prayer is grantable
ex debito just it ice ; and Magna Charta says : nuUi vendemus, nulli
negabiifius,aut differemus Justitiamvel rectum. {Chitty., Prerog. C. 13.
Sect. I ,• See a/so Manning 2. 578. Vin. Ab. Si^^ttutes. E.)

The petition (as in the case of the Quebec Bill) may be to the King in
Parliament. {Chitty. Ibid.)

(3). This property oe/ongs to tJu people of Quebec, irrespective of
creed.

Reply : — If so be the case, $|oo,ooc of this property has been voted
away by the people of Quebec irrespective of creed for certain deter-
mined objects. In which case the Toronto J/rz// would do well to busy
itself about its own concerns.

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

"The only y)ractical question which remains for consideration is^
whether the a|)propriation of these funds for the purpose of education
should be directed by His Majesty or by the Provincial Legislature?

i i.

I
'

'i
W

"The Kir.g cheerfully and ^uithout reserve, confides that duty to
the Legislature, in the full persusaion that they will make such a selection
amongst the different plans for this purpose which may be presented
to their notice, as may most effectually advance the interests of religion
and sound learning amongst his subjects; and I cannot doubt that
the Assembly will see the justice of continuing to maintain under the
new distribution of these funds, those scholastic establishments to
which they are now applied." {See Lord GodericlCs despatch, dated
Downing St. ^th July 1831, atid communicated to the House of Assem-
bly, i^th Nov. 183 1.)

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

(4). Early in the year, the Government of the province 7vished to sell
■a certain portion of this property, the Jesuit barracks; but instead of
proceedimj with the sale it asked the Pope for permission to do so. LLis
Holiness magnanimously granted the request, but affixed an important
condition to the transaction. It was this : that the proceeds, wliich, of
course, would be as mucu the money of the public as any other part of
the provincial revenue should be placed at his disposal. To this the
Government suggested as an alternative that the proper authorities
should be alloiaed to apply the money, but that their proposal should be
subject to the approval of the Holy See, and this modification of the
terms was agreed to.

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

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

The Protestant minority of the Province could reasonably object to
this proceeding neither from a point of justice, as they received a
pro rata sum, exceeding however their numerical importance, nor
ixom ^ point of sentiment, as Prussia, the great Protestant power on
the European continent had recourse to the Pope's direct arbitration.

(5). The Huntingdon Glkaner, an English Liberal paper, says :
" All this sounds as a tab' told in a dream. That the Premier of a
British Province sho7ild go to Pome and offer to surrender a portion
of the Crown domahi to the Pope, and to divide the proceeds not according
to the will of the Legislature but ff the Holy See, is one of the most
extraordinary transactions recorded in modern history. " A similar
principle was recognized some years ago in a measure before the Quebec
Legislature adjusting certain disputed parish boundaries in Montreal,
wherein it 7vas provided that, notivithstanding the adoption of the
bill by the Legislature, the decision of Rome respecting the parishes in
(juestion, whatever it might be, should prevail. This clause 7oa& subse-
quently struck out, however, ichereas Mu. Mek(. ifr has fully committed
the province to recognition of the author iy of Rome in regard to the
disposal of the mo"ey realised from ibe sale of the Jesuit barracks.

Mil. Owens, an ILnglish speaking member, protested against this in a
vigorous speech; aiid the (Ir.EANER doubtless voices English opinion
when it says that " there is no use if talking about independence from
foreign yoke and of our being a xelfgoverning people if tvhat Mh.
Mercier has done be confirmed." But Mu. Meucier is well aware
that he has nothing to fear from English complaints of I^apal inter-
ference in Quebec politics. In a province where the majority of the
people firmly believe that the Church has a divine right to impose her
will upon the civil poicer, his offence is no offence at all, but rather a
meritorious action. He will have some difficulty, however, in squaring
ills recognition of the Roman authority with the old-fashioned Liberal
maxim that the representatives of the people alone are entitled to pass
upon the disposition of public money.

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

](■

J *'

n
I

I ■

1 ••■•■;

l^t:

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

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

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

Summary.

The Mail of Thursday^ July 5, \%^%, objects {\) to the "■spoliation
theory."

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

(2). "The Mail denies th^ title 0/ the Jesuits to the Estates, as the
order ceased to exist, having been suppressed by Papal Brief 0/ 1773.

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

•77

Brief of suppression (i773')athen existing British Corporation (see pp.
28, 30, 44, 45) and British citizens (see Capitul. of Montreal, art. 46,
p. 37) of the right of possessing property within British territory.

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

(3). Thp: IvIail cites French laws suppressing the Order ^ and the
English siatutii of 1829, directed against the same.

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

(4). i:HE^l\\h expresses a hope that the scheme to obtain payment
from the Federal government will not be countenanced.

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

TEXT OF THE ARTICLE AND REPLY.

Thk Mail, Toronto, Thursday, July, 5, 1888.

.; The Jesuit Bill.

|i). L'Etexdard and other fesuit journals maintain that the appro-
priation of the fesuit estates by the British Crown in the year 1800
was an " act of spoliatinu " based on " the right of conquest." As the
law of nations does not recogiize the right of the conqueror to seiz? pri-
vate or corporate property, the Crown was clca>iy tcrong in appro-
priating the estates, and Uk. Mer lEH is of course justified in making
restitution at this time of the day out of the public chest.

Rkplv ;— The p^eneral statement of the case against the government
is set forth, as I have said, on page 8 of this pamphlet. For full

■t }i

1 vili.i

developments see 'pages there indicated in the references. For the
proofs of the positive claim of the Jesuits on these estates see page 50.

r i 1

■■];■

'^'

i|!

_^.-. .'- fc a i

mi ^

■1

(2). T/iis argument is not, we think, a valid one. The Jesuits icere
suppressed throughout the loorld by a Papal' bull in 1773, and the
order everywhere ceased to exist.

Reply : — When Ihc writer appeals to a Papal Brief (it was not a
bull) to make good an assertion, he appeals to an instrument
imknown outside of Catholic ecclesiastical law, and amusingly arro-
gates to himself competency of judging in such matters. A "heathen
Chinee " in the Court of Arches would cut but a sorry figure ; but the
Editor of the Mail no doubt would take kindly to a position as
minutaiite in a Roman congregation. And if he were not there
thoroughly at home, we shall at least not be so discourteous as to
suppose for an instant that he is not familiar with some of the more
widely known canonico-legal principles, for instance : that a discipli-
nary measure, coming even from the Supreme Head of the Church,
requires promulgation to become law. The promulgation of the brief
of suppression, rigidly enforced in almost every country in the world
and followed by the instant secularization of the members of the
Society, was, owing to the opposition of Frederick II, witheld for a
time in parts of Germany and absolutely never accomplished either
in Russia or in Canada. The very tenor of the brief however requi-
red it. With regard to Canada, it is point of history : " When the
Sovereign Pontiff goaded on by earthly rulers abolished the Jesuits,
Carleton sought out Monseigneur Briand and enjoined on him to say
nothing of the Papal bull (brief |, adding that he took upon himself the
maintaining of these religious in Canada The bishop wrote to the
Sovereign Pontiff tinl the Jesuits of the Province, full of summission
to his will, had shown their readiness to disperse and to set aside the
habit of their order, but that it had been determined otherwise until
further notice, thanks to an agreement between himself and the secular
power. " [Institutions de PHistoire du Canada, par Bibaud, Jeunc,
Senical et Dani'I, Montreal, 1855, page 340). That further notice
never came. .

To effectuate the suppression it was enjoined on all the bishops of
the Catholic world, among other things, to take possession of the pro-
perty of the Jesuits : " Singularum domorum, collegiorum, nee non et
locorum hujusmodi et illorum bonorum, jurium et pertinent iarum qua-
rumcunu/ne possessionem nomine S. Sedis apprehendat et retineat."
But neither was this, nor were any ether of the enactments of the

Brief put in force. The superiors remained at their posts, and con-
tinued to exercise control over their subordinates, all of whom retained
their habit, name and customs of community life. They were styled
Jesuits and acted as such. They administered their estates as any
other religious body of men are wont to do. In an official utterance
of the 1 8th Nov. 1789, Mgr Hubert speaks of the Estates as " apparte-
nant actuellement aux Jesuites " and furtlier implies that the bishops-
of Quebec, up to that date, exercised no coutrol over the same.

Chandler and the other royal commissioners, in an official commu-
nication of the 23rd January 1788, addressed the body thus: ^^ Aux
Reverends Peres de Glapion, Super ienr, et autres Jesuites en la Pro-
vince de Qut'bec. De Glapion in his eloquent and dignified protest
against a threatened spoliation, addressed to Hugh Finlay, President
of the Legislative Council, signs himself : " Supericur des Jesuites en
Canada." Even a poor surviving lay brother, and I had thought until
quite lately that they had all long before that date been secularized,
signs an important document, dated 13th Jan, 1780, under the eyes of
the Vicar General, M. Hubert, who signed it with him. — He signs with-
outprotest Frere Demers,Jesiiite. (See Archives, Hotel-Dieu de Quebec.)

These and many other well authenticated facts and documents i)rove
conclusively for any canonist that canonically the Jesuits were not
suppressed in Canada.

II would be difficult to prove in a court of law that they were ever
even civilly suppressed in the Province, and certainly not down to 1791
{see pp. 29, 30). What evidence is there, or can the Editor of the Mail
adduce, to prove that the Royal Instructions of 1791 were ever pro-
mulgated by a decree, or in any legal form? If there be none, the pre-
viously recognized' corporation of the Jesuits was never even civilly-
suppressed.

(3). It is extremly doubtful if the Jesuits had a legal title to their
estates tmder the French law which prevailed here do7vn to the conquest.

Reply: — What is extrcncly doubtful is that the Editor of the Mail
ever took the trouble to enquire into the matter. The Jesuits had a
perfect legal title to their estates, as even any third class lawyer in a
police court can understand by consulting pp. 26, 27 and 28.

(4). All the title existing appears to have been vested in the Gmeral
of the order., who, being an alien not under allegiance to the King of
France, could not hold real property either in I^rance or in a French
colony.

Reply : — I most formally and emphatically deny the truth of the
assertion that the title to the property of the Jesuits is vested in the
General of the Jesuits at Rome. Like the president or avowed head,
of any civil corporation, whose field of action may extend to more than
one country (let us take the (). T, R. for instance, whose lines extend
into the neighboring States), the General of the Jesuits exercises a
certain control over the movable and immovable ]>roperty of the
order. He is not the owner. He cannot take from one house to give
to another. His office is to administer, through himself or others, the
estates belonging to these separate houses, and may pass contracts
only to the advantage and for the utility of these houses. (Constitut.
P. IX., C. IV. ; Examen gen., C. I., No. 4; Bulla, Greg XIII, 1582).
If the annual income of the colleges, destined, in virtue of the intention
of founders or of the provisions of the institute, for the sustenance and
clothing of the Jesuits who are their inmates, exceed the outlay, the
surplus in each house is to be employed, not in new establishments,
but in liquidating outstanding debts or increasing the revenues (Inst,
pro admin., tit. pro rect, No. 6). Both Church and State had recog-
nized this right of non-solidarity. For when one house was in penury,
its revenues being insufficient, both powers, without taking into con-
sideration the comparative i)rosperity of other houses, assisted the
poorer house with their endowments. They recognised thus their non-
solidarity.

In France down to 1760 no one thought of questioning this non-
solidarity which all religious orders enjoyed in common with the
Jesuits. Subsequently it was never assailed in other institutes, it
was attacked only in that of Loyola. It was alleged that the general
of the society held despotic sway, that he was absolute master of per-
sons and things, and consequently universal proprietor of all the
worldly goods of the order. According to the terms of their consti-
tution, this assertion was groundless, but under the influence of certain
bitter hatreds it assumed the proportions of a principle.

The legislation of the Institute is nevertheless clear on this point.
The General is ranked in the same category as his brethren , if they
cannot hold property, in their own right, for having vowed perpetual
poverty, neither can he, for the same identical reason. In religious
societies it is not the individuals nor the superior who possesses, but
the various establishments, as bodies corporate, legally recognized as
such before both civil and ecclesiastical law. The text of Loyola's
constitutions exhibits every where the General as the administrator
and not the proprietor of the Society's possessions. In his adminis-
tration, which the constitutions (P. IV. c. 11) term superintendence,

as it is he who names the other superiors, who must give him an
account of their administration, the General is subject, on all essential
points, to the control of general congregations. Without their assent,
he can neither alienate nor suppress a college or other establishment,
and the breach of this law would be for him a case of deposition, or
even expulsion from the society, provided for in the constitutions
(P. IX. c. 4.) He is empowered to accept property or donations for
the society j he may, when the intention of the donor is not determined,
allot them to this or that house ; but once they are allotted, it is beyond
his povvers to divert what accrues, or to collect a percentage on the
revenues either for his own use or for strangers.

But had it even been the case, as far as France was concerned, at
the time of the conquest and after, it certainly was not the General
who held possession of the Jesuits' estates in Canada. The merest
tyro in jurisprudence is able to apprehend the meaning of the letters
patent and of the Royal Instructions. Louis XIV styles the Jesuits:
*' Nos chers et bien aimez les religieux de la compagnie de Jesus resi-
dant en noire pays de la Noiivellc France ", and the Royal Instructions
of the i6th September, 1791 ; "the present members of the said
society (/. e., society of Jesuits already mentioned) as established
at Quebec." There is no question here of a sole but of an
aggregate corporation : no question of the General of the Society, but
of the body established at Quebec. To all intents and purposes, for
a Canadian court, the General was a legal nonentity. It was this all
important point that Marriot in his bitter hatred feigned to overlook,
and that others taking him at his word, have so thoughtlessly ignored.

Hence all the title to property existing was not vested in the General
at Rome.

I shall not enquire at what particular date the disability of foreigners
to hold property in France ceased. The thing is also entirely foreign
to the subjet, and its inability of proving anything against the Jesuits'
claims equally manifest. Who ever said that foreigners, at that period,
could hold property in France or England ? Certainly no Jesuit ever
maintained it. I shall not begrudge the Editor of the J[/i;/ all the
comfort he can derive from this harmless asse'^^ion.

To make clear the non-solidarity between the different houses of the
order in financial matters, I have already recorded on pages 62 and 63
the opinion of eight of the most eminent Parisian la»vyers given the 6th
March 1761. What follows will clear up all difficulties in this matter.
Protestant countries ignore religious orders, and treat them as civil
corporations, or merely recognize their individual members as enjoying
before the law equal rights with other citizens. In Catholic countries,

if '

ii*

1^;

i'?i

civil legislation was supposed to be enacted so as to harmonize witb
canon law, of which the Church was the true expounder. When,
therefore, the decisions of doctors of Sorbonne, or of the advocates of
the various parliamentary bodies of France are at variance with canon
law, as expounded by the church, such decisions must needs be held
as not valid, not only by every Catholic, but hypothetically by every
Protestant. That is, if the latter take at all into account canon law,
so as to determine the status of a religious order, they must frame
their notions in accordance with the declared intention of the Catholic
legislator, and the sole authority in the Catholic Church who can
canonicaily establish or suppress religious orders. The Supreme Pontiff
approves their rules, declares their vows solemn or simple, modifies if
needs be, according to the exigency of the times, their mode of life,
and determines their relations with civil society, in contact with which
they necessarily come. A professed religious, incapable of possessing
pro])erty before the church, he may empower to hold real or personal
estate before civil law, as, in fact, he does in all Protestant and in most
Catholic countries, modernized in the sense of the French Revolution.

The common assertion that a mendicant order can hold no prop-
erty in its own right is at variance with canon law. A mendicant order
holds property and has always done so. Or to be more accurate, each
separate cominunity owns in its own right the monastery it occupies.
The individual religious holds and can hold no property save by a
canon ico- legal fiction before the civil law of a country which refuses to
take cognizance of him otherwise than as a citizen.

Since the Revolution, jurisprudence on these matters has ce^ised to
exist in France. Prescinding from the constitutions of the divers
religious societies, constitutions which suppose or establish the non-
solidarity between houses of the same order, this state of things is^
supported on other incontestable grounds. It was recognized by letters
;nt, which in sanctioning each religious establishment, college,
nastery, or community, imparted to each its peculiar and distinctive

il existence. These letters patent assured to each the separate and
unassailable right of property over its patrimony and domains.

In virtue of similar royal enactments each religious house enjoyed
the right of making contracts through its administrator ; that of sueing
and being sued, of pleading and being impleaded ; the right of
acquiring and accepting donations, pious beqi:ests indefinitely, or with
limita»^ion, as the case might be, was equally conceded. Thus there
existed as many bodies corporate as there were houses duly authorized,,
and the goods and cha^^^tels of the one were never confounded with
those of th 3 other. " , . . - ' ;

This was the case of the Jesuits in Canada, under Frencli rule. A
glance at the Letters Patent of Louis XIV and Louis XV still pre-
served in the provincial archives will convince the incredulous. The
Jesuits of Canada, were a body cori)orate before the conquest (which
none vvill dispute), at the conquest and after the conquest, down as
far even as 1791, (See pages 26 to 30). And if they then ceased
so to be, it was by an unwarrantable measure on the part of the Crown.
Their civil status was known and recognized by the Supreme Pontiff,
known and recognized by the Imperial Goverrment.

(5) lI'^iiiTiH^ this point, the British authcitics found the estates
without an oioner in 1800, after the death of the la>^t survivor of the
order in Canada ; and, under Brisish /ani, the estates thereupon
escheated to the Crown. There was no spoliation or anything remotely
resembling it. The property passed to the Crown, like the Mereer estate
in this provinee afeio years ago, owing to the absence of laivful heirs ;
and that wa& the end of the matter. It may be worth lohile, however,
to call attention to one or t7vo facts which have an indirect bearing on
this branch of the subject. British law has long treated the Society of
Jesus as an illegal organization. Blackstone, /// his well known Com-
mentaries, 7i' hie h were issued in 1765-9, held it to be such (sec under
the head of " Mortmain." ) Again, the Catholic Emancipation Act of
1829 imposed severe restrictions on the Jesuits and members of other
religions orders. This provision is still in force in the United Kingdom ;
at least Mr. Gf-adstonk implitd as much durin^j his controversy on
Vaticanism ; while in 1875 Mr. Disraeli stated in a speeth that
" although no proceedings had been taken against Jesuits under the Act
" fj/" 1829, he begged it to be under stood that the provisions of that " Act
" are not obsolete, but, on the contrary, are reserving powers of law of
" which the British Government ivill be prepared to avail themselves if
^'•necessary." The Act of \Z2C) provides that any Jesuit or oth<r mem-
ber of a religious order coming into the realm without a license,
which license shall run for only six months, shall be deemed guilty of mis-
demeanour, and sentenced to be banished the country : and if found icithin
the country at the expiration of three months from the date of the first noti-
fication may on a second conviction be sent to gaol, ft is arguable, therefore,
that the British Cro7vn in 1 800 was dealing icith the property of a
society which had not only ceased to exist here, but which, according to
Blackstone, had no right to exist within the realm of England;
though, of course, it may be contended that British law had no force in
Canada, ei^en at the conquest. The Parliament of Paris by the arret
of 1762, the Parliament of Rouen in 1764, and the Ireneh King by an

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^ ,^^

«i^

1.0

I.I

1.25

12.2

Ui Hi

!: 1^ 12.0

1.4

11^

c*'

'>>

Hiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 873-4303

•■^

^<b

"•i)

■<dict ()/ 1777, a// decreed the suppression of the order on public grounds.
These arrets and edicts, it wiit be seen, mere promulgated after Canada
had ceased to be a French possession : neverthelesn they serve in conjunc-
tion with the Bull 0/ suppression <?/ 1773 to support the view that, apart
altogether from the prerogative of escheat, the British Crown would
have been morally justified in confiscating the property of the order in
■ its newly conquered colony, particularly 7ohen it is borne in mind that
the complaint running through the arrets and the Bull urns that the
Jesuits 7i<ere habitual disturbers of the public repose. The right of
escheat in the case of derelict property is, however, completely fatal to
the si'oliation theory norv advanced.

Rkply : The most sensible feature in the above lengthy quotation
from the Mail is the readiness of the editor to waive the preceding
point, for he felt no doubt, after having read over his statement, that
it was untenable.

AVhat follows, in as much as it is calculated to affect the status quces-

4ionis, is equally so. The plea that it is by right of escheat that the

government holds the Jesuits' Estates is hopelessly forlorn, I refer

the reader back to ])ages 47-50 and 68, where he will find this

absurd pretension totally demolished.

Furthermore there is no parity between the lapsing of the Mercer
restate to the Crown and the case of the Jesuits. In the former, no
.solemn treaty compact was violated, no obstacles deliberately thrown
in the way to prevent the begetting of heirs, with the express inten-
tion of ultimately securing the inheritance for the Crown. In the latter,
we have all this, and over and above, the fact that it came under the
class of religious or eleemosynary corporations in whose case, when
the succession is interrupted, whatever comes by bequest and endow-
ment reverts to the original donors.

But ignorant though he may be of all this, the writer in the Mail
instinctively feels that he is not treading on solid ground, he therefore
appeals to bigotry and fanaticism. The Jesuits are proscribed in
England ! Well what if they be ? Was not Our Lord proscribed, and
St Paul and the other Apostles, and the early Christians ? The Jesuits
were proscribed by the Iroquois, and on the very soil of the present
Province of Ontario they were burnt at the stake. Proscribed in
England ? It simply shows that there is yet in England, as unfortu-
nately in Canada, an understratum of ignorance and intolerance,
modern Mohawks, to whom demagogues may occasionally appeal when
they wish to secure a political point. But the good sense and intelli-
gence of the ruling classes in England are too strong to allow of these

vjVf

Mi'f

dormant laws being evoked. The Jesuits there are known and so are
all their houses and colleges. They are respected by respectable
Protestants. The Jesuit astronomer, Father Perry, is intrusted by"
government with important missions, and the Jesuits in India are com-
plimented by Governors for implanting loyalty in the hearts of their
piipils (pp. 6i, 62).

We could not give in clearer or more precise terms tlie relations of
the Jesuits with the home Government after 1773 than as we find them
described in the Memoire stir les Biens ties Jesuitcs en Canada.
(Montrial, 1874/ /. 74.-

"In England the Jesuits, early in the eighteenth century, ht.,d begun
purchasing chapels and residences with t'-eir own funds or what pious
Catholics contributed. They not only continued after 1773 the same
ministry but they retained their former possessions, which they be-
queathed one to another. In 1803, the Fathers of Sconyhurst College,
were affiiliated to those of Russia. They educated younger members to
replace the superannuated, who had until then retained their jjosts in
their original missions On the occasion of a misunderstanding be-
tween some English ecclesiastics and the Jesuits of the College, Cardinal
Litta, prefect of Propaganda, wrote to iVlgr Gibson, Vicar Apostolic of
the Northern District, that he should bear )n mind the 22nd Rule laid
down by Benedict XIV anent the English Missions. The term: areas
follows: "Let no change be made \\\ the muter of foundations, and
let both the secular and regular clergy remain in i)ossessioa of what
they actually hold."

"Even after the Brief in 1773, the, English Government affected to-
ignore the existence of Jesuits in Cireat Britain, the fact of tlieir holding
property and of their quietly bequeathing it. It did more, it maintained
them in spite of the intrigues of secret agents sent over to England by
their enemies in Italy. It was in reference to this th.at Frederick of
Prussia, wiiting to d'Alembert, the 7th January 1774, said : " I am not
alone in maintaining the Jesuits, the English and the Em()ress of
Russia are doing as much, and even London is at one with these States."
(Giuvres de d'Alembert, t 17, p. 378).

"In 1762, at the very moment when the parliaments of France were
proscribing the Jesuits, and so shamelessly appropriating their pos-
sessions, the English were seizing La Martinique. Under their pro-
tection the Jesuits, established in the island, sold their posstssions to
British subjects realizing three or four million fran s. Here was an
instance of the fairness and noble dealing of the English Government
in the case of Catholic religious orders.

"The Emperor of China, Kanghi, having been cured of a dan-
gerous complaint by Bernard Rhodes, a Jesuit coadjutor, outof g'-atitude
gave several golden ingots to the Jesuits of Pekin. The sale of these
realized 200,000 francs. The Siperiors of the mission deposited the
amount with the English East India Company, with the tmderstanding
that an annual su'n of i2.oi)o francs be piid over to ihw necessitous
missionaries of China and India.

' !

■ ) I
■ t,',

■iTT7

" At the time of the suppression of the Jesuits, the East India
Company confiscated the 200,000 francs, and refused to pay the inte-
rest of the sum to the Jesuits, which it expended liowever on hospitals.
The ex-Jesuits of Pondicherry made representations in London, and the
Governors of the East India Company wrote to tht. ir agents that if
other governments had been guiUy of a serious infraction of the l^aws
of Nations, there was no reason for the East India Company to follow
in their wake. The directors gave orders to have the trust maintained
inviolable, and the interest punctually paid. They ordered moreover
that the arrears of the previous three years be made good.

' Atthe death of ihe last surviving Jesuit at Pondicherry, in 1813,
the Projjaganda decided that the interest should thenceforth be expen-
ded on the Chinese missions.

"It is clear therefore that England acknowledged that the suppres-
sion of the Society authorized no one to seize upon its estates. These
funds were made use of according to the intention of the donors for
the mauitenance of the Jesuits, and at the demise of the last. Propa-
ganda, considering 'hat tiie fund was ecclesiastical property given for
the mission of China, placed it in the hands of the Chinese missiona-
ries " Of whom, we might add, tiie present Jesuits form a very conside-
rable portion. .

One word now about Blackstone's Commentaries, and ':he impor-
tance a great English jurisconsult and statesman attached to them as
bearing on the Canadian question.

Blacksione published the first volume of his commentaries in 1765.
Thurlow, who was created Lord High Chancellor of England in June
1778, presented his report to the King on the 22nd of January, 1773,
and delivered his speech in the House of Commons in 1774. He was
thoroughly conversant with the doings and decrees of the parliaments
and courts in question, and was probably more familiar with Blacks-
tone's utterances than the Editor of the Ala// and myself ; and never-
theless he emphatically declares that the capitulations and treaty are
binding on the King. And in what sense? "That every Canadian
should have the full enjoyment of all his property, particularly the
religious orders of the Canadians." That the treaty "was made in
favor of religion, made in favor of the several religious orders."
(pp. 44, 45.)

Moreover, and I once more repeat it, the penal laws, and the
common law as such do not hold in the colonies (see p. 46). So that
the act of 1829, irrespective of its coming seventy years too late to
affect the capitulation of 1760, has no more binding force here than it
would have in Cathay.

The French laws spoken of were also subsequent to the cession,
and have as much bearing on our subject as the present Fiench laws

\B/

-•*

^■/

of conscription would have on the actual obligations of the descendants
of the original French colonists in our midst. And yet after solemnly
rehearsing these dire enactments, as if they were pregnant with great
consequences for his cause, the Editor coolly turns around and informs
us in an aside: " though, of course, it may be contended that British
law had no force in Canada, even at the conquest ! " This is worthy
of a comedian, but not of an honest member of the press, who is sup-
posed to enlighten his readers and civilize them up to the standard of
nv)dern requirements, among which may be reckoned, and not as the
least. Christian brytherly-love, and an unswerving attachment to
justice, as one of God's divine attributes and man's noblest virtues.

It is equally futile to drag in the Brief of 1773 in palliation for the
seizure of the Jesuits' Estates, for that spoliation was a foregone con-
clusion from the beginning as we have shown at page 68. The right
based on conquest was alone invoked (see page 50). So that " the
right of escheat in the case of derelict property is" not "completely
fatal to the spoliation theory advanced."

Therefore, to sum up in a few words what precedes : the Govern-
ment had no right by Escheat to the Jesuit P:states (p. 47). They
were a recognized corporation (pp. 26, 30), and a body corporate
cannot be destroyed, not its franchises diminished by the ruler in virtue
of his royal prerogative alone (p. 48). The inhibition to .receive new
members was an unwarrantable suppression of its frachises, issued in
view of the ultimate advantage to accrue to the Crown from a broken
succession /p. 3). The Government in point of fact issued such
inhibition (p. 49). Therefore the Government's title through escheat
was untenable. This the Government tacitly acknowledged as it
never put forward this plea either at the seizure or transfer of the
Estates (see page 50). It was Marriot's suggestion entertained proba-
bly at first but subsequently never acted upon.

The Jesuits on the contrary have a positive claim on these their
former Estates (p. 50).

NoTA. — The reader will be kind enough to correct a statement
made on page 61. Sir Richard Tremple was not Vice-Roy of India.
He became Governor of Bombay in May 1877. The address was
delivered previous to his leaving the Bengal Presidency.

(6). To try the whole matter by the test of analo^^y, if the Masonic
or Orange body in Quebec were to cease to exist tomorrow, and if its
real property in default of rightful owners were appropriated by the
Crown, can anybody suppose that, eighty-seven years after such an occur-
rence, the Quebec Legislature could be induced to grant compensation to

another and a wholly different set of men calling; themselves Orangemen
or Freemasons ; and to recognize the right of some Grand Master resi-
ding at Vienna or Rome to dictate to the Government of the day as to
the modus opeiandi of the restitution; more e<<pecially if it were
demonstrable that other civilized nations had refused domicile to the
organization referred to because of its pernicious pri?icii>les ?

?ii

1^4

m- >*■■'■■
m. : ■ i-i
WA,' ■]■'■

Reply : — In attempting " to try the whole matter by the test of
analogy" the writer in the Mail is singularly infelicitous in the choice
of his terms of comparison. Unless his intention be not' to prove
anything in particular, but merely to hound on the Masons and the
Orangemen in this attack against the Province of Quebec in the free
exercise of its clearly defined rights. I say Quebec advisedly, as its
legislature was unanimous in passing the Bill. But as we have not to
busy ourselves about the intentions of men, which we leave to the
Searcher of hearts, let us see if there be, what he should have proved,
any parity or analogy in the hypothesis.

The Jesuits were and are a body corporate (pp. 26-30). In the
province of Quebec the Orange association is certainly not incorporated.
(We say nothing of Ontario, as the Mail speaks of the Province of
Quebec). So that, in default of rightful heirs, their property would
lapse to the Crown as that of private individuals only. Of the vast body
of Masons in Quebec there is but one branch incorporated, generally
termed that of Blue Masonry. I hazard this appellation, and the
Afail y/\\\ be lenient, I hope, as I am not thoroughly versed in the lore
of the brethren ot the mystic tie. However I invite the Editor to con-
sult the records and he will find that I am substantially correct.

The Orangemen tiierefore are out of the question. What now about
those Masons who are incorporated in the Province ?

To be enabled to give a satisfactory solution, several questions
should yet be answered. Are they regarded by the law as coming
under the heading of religious or eleemosynary corporations ? Was
their property acquired by donation, the donors having in view and
specifying praiseworthy and legitimate ends ? Did the Crown debar
them from receiving new members infraudem legis ? Was the Govern-
ment, in assuming the proprietorship, in good faith at the inception,
or was it, owing to some protest previous to the seizin, placed in the
position of a malce fidei possessor from the beginning. Were these
protests kept up at reasonable intervals during the eighty-seven years?
etc., etc.

When these and many other queries have been answered satisfactorily^
the next question would be, whether that " wholly^diflferent set of men

•^

calling themselves Freemasons" are revived by a new charter with
the express intention of preserving the old corporation (pp. 50, 51,)
with which, we will suppose, as in the case of the Jesuits, they were
bound by some unbroken tangible tie, either within or without the
limits of the Province, and which taken alone, without giving them an
absolute civil legal right to the estates in question, may serve at least
as a means of identification.

I should not then ask, as the Editor, " can any body suppose that
the Quebec Legislature could be induced to grant compensation ?"
For Legislatures, as I think the Editor has lived long enough to know,
do not always do the legal thing, but I ask 7c'/iat looiihi the Legislature
be expected to do in strict legality ?

Since the article of the Afaii was written many months have elapsed,
and during the interval the Ottawa Government has declared its inten-
tion of not Jisallowing the Bill. This was an act of mere justice. And
for that act, though it be looked upon as demanded by justice, the
Society of Jesus feeis grateful, and will not allow its gratitude to be
lessened by any consideration of what might have been the policy of
the Federal Government in so doing. This would be going beyond
its sphere and would be an entering on the arena of politics, which the
Society eschews.

The present is a fitting occasion to 'revert to the efforts of some of
the friends of the opposition in the. Province of Quebec. They have
industriously endeavoured to spread an ill-defined rumour that the
Society had taken sides in the politics of the Province. This insinuation,
for it never assumed the proportions of a specific accusation, is wholly
groundless. The Superior of the order in Canada, in the columns of the
Montreal press, issued a formal declaration to the contrary dated the
4th of February of the present year. It was perhaps unnecessary, bu*
the object was to dispel the uneasiness arising from the supposition
that the order was allowing itself to be dragged into the whirl of party
strife. Now, if the Society were called upon to define its attitude with
regard to public afiairs wholly secular, it could not better determine
its stand than by saying that it reciprocates the feelings attributed to
Its friends in the above mentioned declaration : "The society of Jesus,
as a fixed principle, should hold itself aloof from politics, and
what proves that we have been faithful to this rule is that we have
always numbered sincere and devoted friends among eminent men
belonging to every shade of party politics not inimical to the Church."
I mean to say that the Society identifies itself with no purely political
party, but that such men, specified in the declaration, will always find

111

■a^ ■ >

Kil

in the Society, according to the measure of its feeble resources, unfeigned
sympathy and support.

But this sympathy bowewer impartially it be yielded, cannot rea-
sonably stand in the way of an expression of well earned gratitude, one
of the noblest impulses of the human heart. And when friends have
risked as public men their popularity with the unthinking and unreason-
ing masses of a sister ])rovince, in not hesitating to do and dare in
what they rightly deemed an act of justice, and which in a small measure
at least may redound to the advantage of the Society, is it necessary to
state that these men have laid the Society under lasting obligations?

But we are fully awire that, we owe gratitude also to those who,
during their administration silently but effectually prepared the way,
and contributed in no slight degree to the working out of the present
solution. It were a breach of confidence, we thought, to thank them
by name. Ikit since our silence has been misinterpreted it is but fair
that the public should know that we are not unmindful of their good
services. Circumstances, over which the Society had certainly no
control, prevented the further realization of their plans. They may
not rightly have gauged the importance of the support upon which
they could count coming from every class of persons in the Province
of Quebec, but wc know that their intentions were honest and their
friendship sincere.

It is consequently to the entire Province, irrespective of party, that
we are ii>debted; and though we may share eventually but in a very
inferior degree in the benefits of the restitution, made however in view cf
a wrong done the Society, our keen appreciation of its goodwill will
be the same as if the entire sum were to be allotted to us.

We come now to an important admission which the Editor of the
liai/ would do well to bear in mind in the midst of the senseless clamor
he has contributed to excite :

// is reported from Ottawa that an effort is being made to secure the
disallowance of the compensation bill, which has just passed its third
reading. Beyond question, however, the Quebec Legislature is well
within its rights in passing the fesuit Incorporation Act of last year.
Disallo7vance could only be invoked, therefore, on the ground that the
establishment and endowment of the Jesuit order in Canada was con-
trary to the public interest ; and this course a Gov ernor-in-Council free
from clerical entanglements would probably not hesitate to pursue. But
it is useless to look for resolute action from either political party where
(lerical interests are involved.

Reply : I have nothing to say about the Governor-in-Council,
I shall leave that to the Mail ; I fully concur in opining that the Que-

bee Legislature is well within its rights. Let me add however, that
with regard to the ground for disallowance, there will be little danger
on that score if the Mail and its congeners keep within the legimate
region of facts, and refrain from trotting out some bugaboo from the
columns of a favorite encyclopaedia.

Their stock-in-trade is no novelty, but the main staple is no doubt
the loose principles of the Jesuits. And in dealing with this class of
Pharisees an anonymous writer on the same subject in 1828 very appo-
sitely says :

"It is anything but natural to apply the principles of severity
exclusively to one's self while encouraging laxity in others. Quite the
reverse is the every day occupation of many who feign to take offence
at the principles of the assumed lax Ethics of the Jesuits. To this
the world bears witness, and worldly as the world is, it is scandalized
and scoffs, while good men are heart-sore. But after all to consider
things in the light of common sense, it will be always acknowleged less
surprising to find rigorism preached by those who live loosely, than to
see laxity preached by those who practice rigorism. The former is all
down-hill work, and is prevalent enough in our day. The latter mode
offers no inducement. Nothing is to be gained by it either in (iod's
sight or the world's. It would be to work out one's own damnation at
great labor and cost, with not one compensating feature ; it would be
to go to perdition by the narrow gate. Such a plan was never hmned
according to the promptings of self-indulgence, and to have invented
it, the Jesuits must have been made of different clay from that of other
mortals."

We- e the true principles of Jesuit Ethi on mental reservation or
prevarication adopted by their adversari many a church, which a
month or so ago (for it was the general complaint) were all but empty,
would have remained so, and many a column of the fanatical press,
now teeming with sensational and blood-thirsty harangues, would have
remained blank and unsullied, though the net profits would have been
considerables less.

The best that can be hoped for is that Sir John Macdonaid sha//
set his /ace against the plea now being covertly put forivard, that inas-
much as the Jesuits preached the Gospel here for two hundred years
prior to the conquest, and that the revenue from these estates, was
applied betvceen 1841 and 1867 to the purpose of education in Upper
as well as in Lower Canada, to Protestant as well as to Roman Ca-
tholic schools and colleges, therefore the payment of the $400,000 granted
/y Mr. Mercier rt5 compensation should be assumed by the Federal
treasury.

And thus the Mail closes its article. The contents of this last para-

graph do not concern us. The Mai/ kept up for a while its desultory
fire, but no new arguments were brought to bear on the Jesuit position.
Little by little the champion of anti-Catholic causes was lulled to sleep.
Months after, it again awoke to a sense of danger. It espoused the
cause of the Evangelical Alliance. The worthy members of this orga-
nization had, in the meantime, been painfully made aware that their
meeting-houses were about empty, and thai something thrilling must
be put on the boards to draw a house. The old Jesuit hobby was
brought down from the garret, the dust and cobwebs reverentially
removed, and with a fresh coat of paint it was found that it might yet
do good service. When it has served its term, and its usefulness is
gone, it will be again stowed away, to be held in reserve for some
future occasion. Renascent ur memfcia.

For an answer to the popular objections, now being urged for the
hundredth time against the Ethical Code of the Jesuits, we refer the
consciencious searcher after truth to Brow.nson's Essays, NetuYork,
Sadlier, 1858 : " Tliornweirs Answer to Dr. Lynch:" Can what is
philosop}ncally true be theologicai/y false 1 p. 180. And for what con-
cerns more particularly the Jesuits : The end justifies the means, Pro-
hahilistn, Tlie Jesuit Oath, etc., pp. 186 to icfS passim.

Does the End justify thk means? American Catholic Quar-
terly Review, Jan 1888, p. 119; Catholic KE\iEy<, Neiu- York, Jan.
21 ; Feb. 4; March 10, 1888.

« (

1^1

APPENDIX A.

% I

Tlie JeNiiitN* Declaration of Higlits previous to

the Helziire.

On May 24th 1770, Lord Jeffery Amherst's petition for the Jesuits'
Estates was referred by the King to the Lord of the Committee of
Council. In spite of innumerable reports and other endless proceed
ings, nothing definite had been concluded in the matter fpr sixteen
years. On August i8th 1786, the King's order was issued directing
Lord Dorchester to form a commission within the province, as it n-as
hoped that being on the spot such commissioners would be better able
to bring the work to completion than the Crown Lawyers residing in
England. To fully comprehend the workings of this commission and
the duplicity of Chandler, its chairman, it would be well to consult the
protest of Messrs. Panet and Tas( 'ereau, embodied in the Report of
Education in 1824, page 152 (French version), under the heading
*• Des procedes des neuf commissaires."

On August 26 1788, both the Commissioners and the Jesuits were
summoned by Hugh Finlay, the president of the Legislative Council,
to appear before that body on September 15th following. The subjoined
letter is the answer of tlie Jesuit Superior.

Endorsed : Answer or Letter of F. de Glapion, Jesuit, to Mons.
Hugh Finlav, member ok the Legislative Council,

10 Sei'i'. 1788.

Monsieur le President,

I offer you an apology for having so long delayed answering the
letter you were pleased to address me on the 26th of last August.

If you deem indispensible our presenting ourselves before your
honorable Committee, we shall appear before it on the .• 5th of the
present month, at the hour indicated. But we can say nothing more
than what I have now the honor of submitting to you :

I. Since we passed under English rule, we have been and are still,
and always will remain docile and faithful subjects of His Britannic

Majesty. We dare flatter ourselves that the English Governors, who
have ruled this province, would not refuse us attestations of our fidelity
and obedience.

II. It would appear that at the present juncture there is less ques-
tion of our persons than of our temporalities.

Our Estates or landed possessions have come to us from three dif-
ferent sources: i" The Kings of France gave us a portion of them*
2° Private individuals another portion. These donations were made
with the intent of affording sustenance to the Jesuit Missionaries
employed in the instruction of the Indians and Canadians. Most of
them ceased to devote themselves to these works of charity then only
when they ceased to live; and those who have survived them are
engaged in the same labors, and persevere in the determination of so
doing until their death, which in the course of nature cannot be far
removed. 3'^ Finally our predecessors acquired with their own funds
the third portion of our Estates.

III. All our title-deeds of possession, which are well and duly regis-
tered at the provincial record-office show that all these Estates or
landed possessions have always belonged to us in fee-simple ; and we
have always managed and administered them as our own without let
or hinderance.

IV. Our proprietorship was clearly recognized in the Capitulation
of Canada signed at the camp before Montreal, the 8th of September
1760J since, in virtue of the 35th article, Lord Amherst allowed us to
sell our landed estates and movables in whole or in part, and to
transmit the proceeds to France.

V. Be this as it may. Sir, we are in the hands of his Majesty who
will decide according to his good pleasure. But irreproachable subjects
and children can await a favorable decision only from so gracious a
King and so kind a father as is his His Majesty George III.

I have the honor to be with profound respect.

Sir,
Your most humble and obedient servant,

AUGUSTIN L. DE GlAPION,

Superior of the Jesuits in Canada.
Quebec, the I cth of September 1788.

(The autograph letter is preserved in the Archives of St. Mary's
College, Montreal.)

-I