It is plain that, in ecclesiastical law, the Honorable Judge entertains a higher respect for his Bishop than for the Pope. He concluded his argument as follows: "Il ne me reste plus qu'à exprimer mon étonnement, qu'un des savants conseils des défendeurs aient poussé ses prétentions jusqu'à citer à la Cour le Syllabus et à s'en étayer pour réduire en proposition, que 'la compétence de ce tribunal, dans l'espèce actuelle, est condamnée par l'Eglise'; il suffit de signaler une telle prétention pour en apprécier la valeur."

Finally, the Honorable Judge invoked the authority of Sir L. H. La Fontaine : “Dans la cause de Varrennes, Jarret et Sénécal, en appel, en Mars 1860-Le juge en chef Sir Louis H. LaFontaine en parlant du factum du savant conseil de l'appelant, M. Cherrier, s'exprime comme suit: (L. C. Jurist, vol. 4, p. 213, et surtout p. 233.)

'Je les approuve les raisonnements, d'autant plus que je vois. avec plaisir, qu'il a puisé tous les principes qu'il a énoncés et soutenus, exclusivement dans l'ancien droit ecclésiastique de la France, qui est celui du Bas-Canada, et par conséquent, celui d'après lequel, nous avons fait serment de juger.'

We do not see that either the learned and much regretted Chief Justice or Mgr. Desautels held or declared that the appel comme d'abus ever existed in Canada, or that the civil courts had the right to intervene in spiritual matters. Doubtless the ecclesiastical law of the country is the same as the one in force in Canada at the cession, so far as consistent with the political ransformation of the colony under British rule, as we shall see in our next number, but that ecclesiastical law had reference only to temporal matters, and not to things purely spiritual, which were beyond the reach of the laws and courts of the land.

In the case of Sénécal above referred to, the question was not a spiritual but a purely temporal one, and as such was necessarily decided by the old law of France. It was: Who had the right to preside at meetings of fabriques,-the curé or the oldest churchwarden ?

Furthermore, in a written opinion to the Seminary of Montreal in 1847, cited by Mr. Justice Berthelot, Sir L. H. LaFontaine, expressed himself thus: "L'examen de ces deux questions conduit nécessairement à celui de plusieurs autres questions incidentes. Les unes et les autres présentent toutes les difficultés qui se rattachent ordinairement aux questions de droit ecclésiastique, diffi

cultés qui sont d'autant plus grandes pour l'avocat canadien, que pour des raisons qu'il est inutile d'expliquer, mais que justifie pleinement la situation particulière du pays, au point de vue religieux, il est pour ainsi dire, sans boussole et sans voie tracée, lors-. qu'il est obligé de se mettre à la recherche des principes ou des règles de l'ancien droit ecclésiastique français qui peuvent recevoir leur application dans le Bas Canada.”

After reading this opinion, it is impossible to cite Sir L. H. La Fontaine as holding that the whole body of French ecclesiastical law was introduced into Canada.

The learned Judge is equally unfortunate in his quotation from Mgr. Desautels, whose Manuel des Curés treats only of the temporal government of parishes and fabriques. Nowhere in that book can there be found an admission that the French ecclesiastical law in spiritual matters was ever in force in Canada. And upon reading the circular of the Bishop of Montreal approving thereof, will be found the following proposition, which is far from admitting the liberties of the Gallican Church and the ecclesiastical law of France as it existed in France at the time of the cession to the British Crown, or of the establishment of the Superior Council of Quebec, 1663:

"10. La puissance spirituelle doit être, pour le bien de la societé chrétienne, distincte et indépendante de la puissance civile, quoiqu'en puissent dire les ennemis de la puissance spirituelle." Finally, Mr. Justice Mondelet's argument contains statements which can hardly be reconciled with each other.

At page 6 he says: "Dans la cause même du curé Naud contre l'Evêque Lartigne qu'a citée la défense, la cour a statué au fond, bien que très correctement elle se soit déclarée incompétente quant aux raisons qui avaient induit l'Evêque à suspendre M. Naud de ses fonctions sacerdotales. Cela, en effet, regardait l'Evêque et le curé seuls, et la Cour n'avait rien à y voir. L'Evêque est et doit être seul juge de l'opportunité de changer de curé, ou missionnaire dans l'intérêt même des cures; et souvent pour de graves causes et raisons, il importe qu'on ne connaisse pas les circonstances qui ont amené ce déplacement."

At page 7 he says: "Il est bon de faire, de suite, justice d'une objection un peu spécieuse, mais qui ne peut soutenir un examen sérieux. Allez-vous, a-t-on dit, obliger un prêtre de faire des prières au cimetière, et prêter son ministère contre ses convictions? Cela est purement spirituel, les tribunaux n'ont rien à y voir.

Mais remarquez donc que les tribunaux, non seulement en France, et c'était le droit commun ecclésiastique et la jurisprudence constatée par des arrêts sans nombre, mais en Canada, les cours ont été bien plus loin que d'ordonner ce dont il est question ici, la simple sépulture ecclésiastique, laquelle n'est pas un sacrement, mais simplement une cérémonie, les tribunaux ont contraint, let prêtre d'administrer le sacrement de baptême. Or ce sacrement est bien une chose sprirituelle, réligieuse.

What! a Bishop is not amenable to a civil court, to show cause why he has removed a curé and yet he is subject to be judicially compelled to administer the sacraments! The appel comme d'abus exists in the latter case but not in the former!! Surely a state of affairs so illogical never could have existed in France.

A word now as to the status of Protestant Churches in Canada before the cession, and we conclude for the present number. It is well known that in France the Catholic Church was the only State Church. At the time when the Colony of New France was organized in 1608, while the Edict of Nantes (1598) was still in full force, it was the only recognized Church in the colony, but not to the exclusion of Protestant Churches, which were tolerated under the regulations prescribed by that Edict. In 1621 we find the inhabitants of Canada complaining of this in a Petition to the King, wherein they pray for the establishment of Catholicism and the exclusion of the Huguenots. In 1627 when the Company of The Hundred Associates was incorporated, one of the conditions of their charter was that the country should be colonized with naturels français catholiques. (Art. 2 of the Edict.)

According to Art. 23 of the Charter of the Compagnie de Occident, in 1717, only the resident foreigners of Canada who were professing the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman faith were allowed to exercise the rights of French subjects (régnicoles). A Protestant foreigner, therefore, could not inherit, receive property by gift or legacy, or in any beneficiary way, without naturalization.

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1685, not having been registered by the Superior Council, was never law in this country. However, in an ordinance of the Intendant Duschesneau in 1676, but which cannot be regarded as constitutional inasmuch as it clashes with the Edict of Nantes, we find the following severe

restrictions: "Défenses aux personnes de la religion prétendue réformée de s'assembler pour faire l'exercise de leur religion dans l'étendue de ce dit pays, sous peine de châtiment suivant la rigueur des ordonnances, lesquelles ne pourront hiverner à l'avenir en ce dit pays, sans permission, et que si quelqu'un y hivernoit pour cause légitime, ils n'auront aucun exercice de leur religion, et vivront comme des Catholiques sans scandale."

That under the sway of these laws, the exercise of the Protestant worship was greatly, if not totally, restricted is unquestionable; but it seems that none of them went so far as to deprive Protestant French subjects of their civil rights. In this respect, the Edict of Nantes, which tolerated the "so called reformed Church," was the political law or charter of Protestant Churches in La Nouvelle France. D. GIROUARD.

Montreal, 7th October, 1871.

(To be continued.)

THE ELECTION LAWS.

The coming year of 1872 will be one of much importance to the Dominion. The first Parliament will have closed its career, and the people will be called upon to choose those to whom they desire the public affairs shall be entrusted. The machinery of Government applicable to a large confederation having been ̧ de- ́· vised and set up by the Parliament which will have passed away, the approval or condemnation of its acts must be submitted to those from whom, under our English constitution, the power emanates. No uniformity in the mode of selecting the Representatives to the House of Commons having been agreed upon by Parliament, the selection will be left to each Province, to be made aocording to its own laws. By an act passed at the last session of the Dominion Parliament, 34 Vic. c. 20, entituled "The Interim Parliamentary Elections Act, 1871," and to be in force for two years only from the time of its passing, section 2, it is declared: "The laws in force in the several Provinces of "Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, at the time of the "Union on the 1st of July, 1867, relative to the following mat"ters that is to say-the qualifications and disqualifications of

olling in On

persons to be elected or to sit or vote as Members of the Legis"lative Assembly, or House of Assembly, in the said several "Provinces respectively-the voters at elections of such Mem"bers-the oath to be taken by voters-the powers and duties "of Returning Officers-and generally the proceedings at and "incident to such elections, shall be provided by the British "North America Act, 1867, continue to apply respectively to "elections of Members to serve in the House of Cor mons for the "Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, an New Bruns"wick." There are certain exceptions, as to the tario and Quebec lasting only for one day, and that the qualification of voters in Ontario shall be such as was by law in force on the 23rd of January, 1869; and a provision that the Revisors in Nova Scotia shall add to the list of voters the names of such Dominion officials and employees as would have been qualified to vote under the laws in force in that Province on the 1st of July, 1867, but who may have been disqualified by act of the Legislature of that Province passed since that day. There are also provisions respecting Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba, and on some other points, but not of a bearing necessary to be observed upon in this article.

Without commenting upon the propriety or impropriety of having the same House composed of Representatives chosen under different laws, with different statutory qualifications, and elected. in different ways, it is sufficient to say that Parliament in its wisdom thought proper to prefer such a course, leaving to the House hereafter to be chosen to determine whether the continuance of such a course shall be prudent for the future or not. The important questions of the qualifications of the candidates, of the nature and extent of the franchise, and of the mode of election, whether by ballot and simultaneous polling or not, will not doubt form during the discussions preceding, and the canvas pending the elections, the subject of many and exciting arguments.

Assuming that all are desirous of doing what is best for the country, it may be useful to compare the existing laws, and thus by contrast enable the people of all the Provinces to select from the legislation of each that which may be deemed best, not simply in theory but in practical working. For this purpose it is proposed briefly to point out the salient features of the election laws in the three Provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia Quebec is not touched upon,-and with reference to both