Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

ecclesiastical laws. If the State refuses this sanction, the law will not be less binding on the State itself; but, by so doing, the State simply declines the honour of protecting the Church, and experience teaches that this will be its misfortune. As the Church which enacts its own laws, so does it also judge ecclesiastical matters independently of the State's glory, to cause the Church's decisions to be respected. The Church decides in matrimonial cases, prescribes the form of marriages, and the State is honoured by causing the decisions of the Church to be observed. The Church has the possession and administration of temporalities, independently of the State; and the State protects the Church in its possessions and administrations. The Church enjoys its immunities, and the State protects it against the sacrilegious man who would wish to violate them. The Church erects dioceses and parishes, and the State helps the Church in all its works. The Church watches over and directs the schools, and it approves the teachers that parents choose, and the State hastens freely to grant its protection and assistance. A Christian Government is far from imitating those liberal governments who arrogate to themselves all right and power in schools, which everywhere become schoolmasters, and which have perverted the education of youth. Such is the union of Church and State, and our venerable Pontiff has devoted his life to the strengthening of this union.*** "In old Europe these truths are beginning to be understood by true politicians. They understand the cause of the evils which overwhelm society. Nations have revolted against God, they have wished to submit God to man, Church to the Government. Profit by their unhappy experience. If the rumblings of thunder in Europe are not sufficient to warn you, must it burst upon your heads before you will take heed? You will listen to the warnings of your Bishop, and your civil and political life will be Christian, as is your private life. Your Bishop's doctrine will have produced this happy result: "He went about doing good." A truly memorable day in the annals of the nineteenth century was that on which the Pope condemned the errors that are sweeping away all modern society. This great event rejoiced true Catholics, and renewed their strength. The Gallicans blinded themselves and sought to give explana

the

tions, and the enemies of the Church gave themselves up to a dark and threatening anger. Our venerated Pastor understood the full bearing of the Pontifical document; he rejoiced at it; and, since that day, he has not relaxed in his efforts to make it produce its legitimate fruit. Every one knows with what learning, what magnificent ideas, what conviction, his Lordship, by a pastoral dated January 1st, 1865, promulgated in his diocese the Syllabus, in which are framed and condemned all the pretensions, encroachments and usurpations of the State. The Church is independent; it has its own tribunals; it possesses and administers its property; it has schools independent of the State. Its communities have no civil origin. In Christian marriage, the contract and sacrament are inseparable, and henceforward Catholic statesmen shall not think of discussing in legislative chambers, about laws concerning divorce or the rights of the Church. One thing alone they can do, repel with indignation every attempt against the rights or independence of the Church. The State is subordinate to the Church, and in case of a conflict between them, the Church has to decide, the State to submit."

Our readers will appreciate, from what we have said, the special allusion to the division of parishes, as well as the invectives against Gallicans and Liberal Catholics in general. It is needless to comment on the good taste and the truly Christian feeling which inspired such an attack on members of the same Church, who had come to take part with the preacher and his section in a personal and religious celebration. "The devil is exercising his oppression chiefly by Gallican and Liberal errors," were gracious. words to fling in the faces of those who had brought their gifts and congratulations to the common head of the Roman Catholic community of Montreal. But the zeal of the sons of Loyola outruns such trivial considerations as these. As to the principles, they are such as in Europe right be propounded in the Univers, or some other irresponsible counterpart of the Nouveau Monde, which is the Jesuit organ at Montreal. But we very much doubt whether it would have

been deemed politic to allow any responsible ecclesiastic to compromise the Church by proclaiming them from the pulpit. Of course we see the loopholes which are left for casuistical interpretation. We know that the "supremacy of the Church over the State" is to be confined to ecclesiastical questions. But what questions are ecclesiastical is to be decided by the Church; and history tells us plainly enough what the scope of her decision will be.

In the political eddies caused by the meeting of these two hostile tides of ecclesiastical opinion sank Sir George Cartier, and probably he sank to rise no more. Neither he, at least, nor any other man in his place, will ever again occupy the position of the political leader of the National Church of French Canada. The result of the conflict between the Gallicans and the Jesuits cannot be doubtful. The Jesuits have all the influences of the hour in their favour, and they will triumph in this case, as they have triumphed in all the Roman Catholic communities of Europe. Their triumph is in fact the inevitable consequence of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, proclaimed in their interest, and through their machinations. There will come, and probably at no distant time, a struggle between the Ultramontane Church of French Canada and the State.

That struggle offers a great part to any public man who is young, who is hopeful, who is strong in conviction, who is not afraid, politically speaking, to take his life in his hand, who aims at something above the prizes for which hack politicians scuffle with each other on the hustings, who desires to win the position which can be won only by becoming the champion of a great cause. The old parties have no such man. We shall see what young Canada can produce.

Turning to Ontario, we find, as a matter of course, the appointment of Mr. Mowat to the Premiership unreservedly lauded by one party organ, and condemned with equal

energy by the other. If the two journalists, instead of serving their parties, were speaking the truth frankly over a dinner table, both would probably agree that the appointment in itself is a very good one-Mr. Mowat being a man of undoubted character and ability-but that the transfer of a judge from the bench to a political office, if it was necessary, was a necessity much to be deplored. In a country like ours, the integrity of the judiciary is at least as important as that of the executive or the legislature; and the integrity of the judiciary can be preserved only by keeping the bench of justice entirely distinct from the political arena. The precedents cited from the English practice by the defenders of Mr. Mowat's appointment, even if they were relevant, would be more honoured in the breach than in the observ vance. But they are not relevant. The combination of the office of Minister of Justice with that of Chief Judge in Equity in the person of the English Chancellor is, like the judicial function of the House of Lords, a relic of a very ancient state of things anterior to the separation of the judiciary from the executive, or of either from the legislature, and it is rather retained by the national conservatism, than approved by the national judgment. Probably a separate Ministry of Jus tice will be among the coming legal reforms. Meantime, the Lord Chancellor does not try controverted elections, and it is scarcely possible that any political question should ever come before him in court. That Lord Ellenborough was taken from the Chief Justiceship of a Court of Common Law into the Cabinet is true; but the measure was generally repudiated at the time, and it is certain that it will never be repeated.

The recall of Vice-Chancellor Mowat to political life is a proof, on the one hand, of the dearth of leading ability in the Ontario Legislature, caused by the narrowness of the parties, and on the other, of the inadequacy of judicial salaries, which are insufficient to retain the services of a first-rate man.

The fact is, that our official salaries generally have been depreciated to a most serious extent, from the rise of prices since the time when their scale was fixed; and their general restoration to their original amount is a pressing need of public policy, as well as of personal justice. If this is not done, we shall soon have a low class of officials, who will think themselves licensed to eke out their salaries by irregular gains in this country, as they notoriously do in the United States. Let the Government appoint a commission of inquiry into the depreciation of salaries, and act on the report.

tion leaders, in support of the factionist doctrine, is a singular and instructive instance of the extent to which the vision, even of very able men, may be distorted by the optical peculiarities of the atmosphere in which they live. We should have thought that if there was anything as to which all men and angels were agreed, it was that the divisions of Christendom are injurious to Christianity. But this eminent factionist has persuaded himself that they are not only not injurious, but essential to the unity of the Christian Church. Without the various contending sects, he says the Church would be an anarchy. Of course he thinks that it was an anarchy in its undivided state under its Founder and the Apostles. Had he been in the place of St. Paul, instead of lamenting the growth of divisions, he would have rejoiced over them as the rudiments of incipient order, emerging out of the religious chaos. Had he sat in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, he would have enjoined the Jewish Chrisians to adhere to their Judaism, and the Gentile Christians to persevere in eating things sacrificed to idols, because they would thereby keep up a Conservative and a Liberal party, a perpetual conflict between which, with abundance of rancour and abuse, was so necessary, in order to prevent an anarchy in the Church.

It is gratifying to note that the proposal of the party organs to introduce faction into our municipal elections is generally repudiated by the good sense of the people, aided, perhaps, by the strategical discretion of the weaker party. The leaders of the Opposition have, however, been making strong speeches in favour of faction as the principle of government. We disclaim any approach to a sneer in saying that those who believe themselves, after a desperate party struggle, to be on the eve of a party triumph, are scarcely unbiassed in their judgment of this question. We have repeatedly recognized the fact that there are at the present time important issues between the Opposition and the Government. We also sin cerely credit the leaders of the Opposition with a desire to put an end to the existing system, and introduce one purer and less injurious to national character in its place. But we, nevertheless, feel perfectly convinced that before they had themselves held power for six months on the party principle, they would be compelled ruefully to acknowledge that faction is not the antidote, but the incentive to corruption. Does any The result of the Welland election looks misgiving of this kind mingle with the mo- like a heavy blow to the Administration, tives which lead Mr. Blake, so strangely, and though its significance is somewhat reduced so fatally to the interests of his party, to by the local and personal circumstances of nullify his influence as a leader by declaring the contest. We cannot lament that the that he will not accept office? appearance of several Cabinet Ministers An argument used by one of the Opposi- brawling and bandying foul language on the

Another orator says that though he rejoices that Ontario gave the Opposition a majority, it would have been a great misfortune if the vote had been "solid." In other words, it would be a great misfortune if the people of Ontario were of one mind as to their own interests. Such are the axioms upon which, literally, Government is at present founded.

hustings, in company with more than one confederate of questionable character, failed to secure the victory for their party. It is time that Ministers in general, and the Prime Minister in particular, should be reminded that they are entrusted with the honour as well as with the interests of the country. A moderate amount of mis-government and jobbery, if carried on with decency, would be preferable to the injury inflicted on national character by some scenes at the late elections. We doubt whether anything so bad ever occurs in the United States. If Conservatism in this country means anything, it means the maintenance of the respect due to Government; but the respect due to Government cannot be maintained, unless the members of the Government will do their part. That self-degradation, either on the part of public men, or of the press, is necessitated by the character and tastes of our people is, we are persuaded, an unfounded notion, if it is not a mere pretence. The necessity may be created, but at present it does not exist. In the late elections corruption was only too efficacious; but ruffianism, we are convinced, only recoiled upon those who were guilty of it.

In the loss of San Juan, we have drunk the last drop of bitterness which can flow, for the present at least, from the Treaty of Washington. It is idle to deny the gravity of this decision, or to attempt to conceal from ourselves the fact that it may impair the value of British Columbia as a Province of the Dominion. But like the decision on the Alabama Claims, it was, in effect rendered inevitable by the Treaty, and there is no ground for impeaching the impartiality of the award. On the other hand, the evident eagerness to condemn Great Britain exhibited by certain of the Judges, in the Genevan arbitration, warns us that Great Britain, in going before European arbitrators, is going before enemies or rivals, while the American Republic, remote from European

complications, is sure of meeting with neutrals at least, and will often meet with partisans.

The Treaty of Washington, construed with reference to its real intent, can hardly be regarded as an instance of international arbitration, or as proving anything for or against that mode of settling the differences of nations. It was, in fact, a purchase by England of peace at the close of a moral war, caused by the depredations of the Alabama and her consorts, the fisheries dispute, and still more, by the sympathy exhibited for the South by certain classes in Great Britain and the colonies. The price paid was the pre-arranged condemnation of Great Britain to the payment of damages for the Alabama, the equally pre-arranged adjudication of San Juan to the United States, and certain concessions with respect to the Fishery and other rights of Canada, the exact import of which is the subject of violent controversy among the organs of our party press, but, in fact, yet remains to be seen. As to the arbitrators, they were something like the sugar-tongs which the old Scotchwoman held in her hand for politeness' sake, while she took up the sugar through them, in primitive fashion, with her fingers. A smouldering quarrel which, though the Americans never intended to go to war, might have been fanned by any chance gust of wind into actual hostilities, has thus, we trust, been finally extinguished; and we are ready to recognize the value of this result, and to give the British Ministers full credit for having done what they sincerely be lieved to be best for the Empire as a whole, and for Canada as a part of it. However high may be the spirit of our people, and however willing they may be to share the fortunes of the mother country in war (though they can contribute nothing to her regular forces), it is obvious that our exposed situa tion must always be an element in her councils on our behalf; and that we must be prepared to make sacrifices for her as she,

undoubtedly, has made sacrifices for us. The appointment of our Prime Minister, the elect of our people, at least of a majority of them, as one of the Commissioners, was the strongest proof of regard for our interests that we could require; and if, as his opponents allege, he was capable of selling the interest and honour of his country for pecuniary assistance to a party job, the fault is ours alone. On the other hand, if England expected from the Treaty any greater advantage than the termination of the existing quarrel-if she imagined that it would annul the moral peculiarities which make every New Englander crave for the humiliation of the land of his fathers, that it would charm the Pennsylvanian protectionist into foregoing his commercial hostility to the great exporting nation, that it would eradicate from the breasts of Americans generally the hatred implanted there by all the lessons of their childhood—the menacing abuse levelled at her the other day by the American press,under the ridiculous impression that she was intriguing against the San Juan decision, as well as the slanderous malignity of that imputation itself, must have awakened her from her dream. Could any counsel from this side of the Atlantic reach the ears of British statesmen, they would learn henceforth to treat the Americans in the only way in which people so disposed can be safely treated, either in public or private life, amicably and with courtesy, but at the same time with reserve, studiously avoiding offence, but at the same time abstaining from unreciprocated cordiality, and from ignominious attempts to fling England into the arms of her one implacable and unappeasable foe. The Atlantic will be the best mediator if statesmen will not interfere.

viction that the failure to seek reparation for the blood of our citizens shed by Fenian hordes organized for the invasion of this country on American soil, with the full knowledge and connivance, not to say approbation, of the American Government, was a desertion of the national honour, which will prove to have been bad policy in the end. We say deliberately that there is no citizen of the United States, who is not conscious that his Government did us a wrong, and intended to do us a wrong; or who believes that the withdrawal of our claim proceeded from any doubt of its validity or from any motive but fear.

6

The St. Juan decision called forth a curious little spurt of Anti-Colonial cynicism from the London Times. Immediately Canadian journalism is in a fluster, and gives us columns of extracts from the fugitive pieces of all the Bohemians in London, on the value of Colonies and the virtues of their inhabitants. Nescis mî filî'—how editorials are composed. 'What does the article in the Times mean? What can it mean?'—is the universal cry. In one of the trials of clergymen for heterodoxy, before the Privy Council in England, the counsel for the prosecution was vehemently insisting on his interpretation of a particular passage in the impugned work. "If this is not its meaning, it has no meaning?" "I am no theologian, Mr. Blank," interrupted one of the judges"I am no theologian, but may not the passage have no meaning." It is truly lamentable to see the anxiety with which our people study, as oracles of our destiny, the random and capricious utterances of the London Press. The Times is the organ of the best informed if not the wisest or most virtuous section of English society, and might We are bound to add in qualification of be supposed to represent settled convictions what we have said in defence of the conduct on the Colonial question: yet in the course of the British Government, that notwith- of a few years it has swung round half a standing the arguments of Professor Bernard dozen times from the Colonial to the Antiand everything else that has been said upon Colonial side and back again; always in its the subject, we remain unshaken in our con- | Colonial moods denouncing Anti-Colonial

« AnteriorContinuar »