Document Information

Date: 1865-03-24
By: True Witness
Citation: “Catholic Rights and Protestant Rights”, True Witness (24 March, 1865)
Other formats: TBA

CATHOLIC RIGHTS AND PROTESTANT RIGHTS.

—With respect to the division on the 13th ult., upon M. Bourassa’s motion, we think it right to give the list of members who voted thereupon, as published by authority in the “Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly”:—

“March 13th—Hon. Mr. Att. General Macdonald moved that a Select Committee, consisting of Hon. Messrs Att. General Macdonald and Cartier, and Galt and Brown, and M. M. Robitaille and Haultain be appointed to draft an address to Her Majesty on the Resolution agreed to on Friday last, the 10th instant, on the subject of the Union of the Colonies of British North America.

“M. Bourassa moved an amendment, that the following words be added to the original motion:—

“‘and that it be an instruction to the said Committee to provide that the Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada be placed on the same footing as the Protestant minority of Lower Canada under the Local Governments of the Confederation of the Provinces of British North America’;—

“which was negatived on the following division:—

Ayes:

Messieurs Bourassa, Caron, Coupal, Dorion [Drummond and Arthabaska], Dorion [Hochelaga], Dufresne [Iberville], Fortier, Geoffrion, Holton, Houde, Labreche-Viger, Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald [Cornwall], O’Halloran, Paquet, Perrault, Pinsonneault, Rymal, and Sylvain.—20.

Nays:

Messieurs Abbott, Alleyn, Archambeault, Ault, Beaubien, Bellerose, Biggar, Blanchet, Bowman, Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burwell, Cameron [North Ontario], Carling, Attorney General Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon, Chapais, Cockburn, Cornellier, Cowan, Currier, De Boucherville, Denis, De Niverville, Dickson, Duckett, Dufresne [Montcalm], Dunsford, Evanturel, Ferguson [Frontenac], Ferguson [South Simcoe], Galt, Gaucher, Gaudet, Gibbs, Harwood, Haultain, Higginson, Howland, Jones [South Leeds], Knight, Langevin, Le Boutillier, Attorney General Macdonald, Macdonald [Toronto West], Mackenzie [Lambton], Mackenzie [North Oxford], Magill, McConkey, McDougall, McGee, McGiverin, McIntyre, McKellar, Morris, Morrison, Parker, Poulin, Poupore, Powell, Raymond, Remillard, Robitaille, Rose, Ross [Champlain], Ross [Dundas], Ross [Prince Edward], Scatcherd, Scoble, Shanly, Smith [East Durham], Smith [Toronto East], Somerville, Stirton, Thompson, Tremblay, Wallbridge [North Hastings], Walsh, Wells, White, Willson, Wood, and Wright [East York].—85.

The Toronto Globe is naturally jubilant over the result of this division, as fatal to the arrogant demands of a Romish minority in Upper Canada, to be placed in educational matters on a footing of equality with a Protestant minority in Lower Canada:—

Mr. Bourassa, in a similar way, proposed to secure to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada who refuse to support our non-sectarian system of common school education, the same legal privileges as are allowed to Protestants in Lower Canada who refuse, as they must do, to support the sectarian system of the French Roman Catholic majority. The two cases are not in the slightest degree similar, but Mr. Bourassa thought the French supporters of Confederation would be embarrassed by his motion and therefore overlooked its manifest unfairness. He does not, however, seem to have caught any of his unionist fellow-countrymen, as his own party is large enough to furnish the twenty votes which he got. Mr. Bourassa was not so glaringly inconsistent as was Mr. Sandfield Macdonald, yet it is always a little amusing to see the Rouges, whose real ideas of religion are understood to be so extremely ‘liberal,’ striving to outbid the French Conservatives in their devotion to the interests of Mother Church.—Globe.

This then is the first ostensible fruits of the union of so-called Catholic Conservatives with the Clear-Grits of Upper Canada; and from the language of Mr. George Brown’s organ, it is clear that the Ministry have no intention to do justice towards the Catholics of the West, whatever may be their benevolent intentions towards the Protestants of the East. “The two cases are not in the slightest degree similar,” says Mr. George Brown’s paper; and it is true that there is betwixt them all the difference that there is betwixt “my” ox, and “your” ox. In other words, there is still to be henceforward one law for Papists, and another law for Protestants.

We see not however what there is to marvel at in the fact noticed by the Globe, that the Opposition section of the French Canadians, whom it brands as Rouges, displayed more zeal in the cause of Freedom of Education for Catholics, than did those whom it qualifies as “French Conservatives.” This is only what we have seen for years; and is just what was to have been expected from men who invariably subordinate principle to party, and with whom Conservatism consists solely, in keeping one set of men in office, and thus assuring to themselves an ample share in the distribution of the public plunder.—Very likely that of those who voted “Yea” on M. Bourassa’s motion some were influenced by a mere spirit of party opposition, and cared nothing for the principle at issue; but as the ridiculous nick-name “Rouge” is applied to every public man who does not so act as if the Alpha and Omega of politics were to keep the present Ministry in office, no matter at what cost to the best interests of the country, it is equally credible that a still greater number of those who voted with the minority, were actuated by conscientious principles.

The fact is that the terms “Rouge” and “Conservative” are ridiculously misapplied.—If by the former opprobrious epithet be meant a democrat, or the fautor of anti-Catholic and revolutionary principles, then most assuredly may it justly be applied to those, amongst French Canadians and Catholics, who in any manner ally themselves politically with Mr. George Brown, and the revolutionary and anti-Catholic party of whom he is the head, and as it were the incarnation. If by the term “Conservative” is meant one who, like the TRUE WITNESS, with all his heart and soul and strength, loathes and abhors the party of the Revolution; its principles, and all its abettors, then is that name desecrated by being applied to men who acknowledge Mr. George Brown—the partizan of the infamous Gavazzi, the eulogist of Mazzini and of Garibaldi, the scurrilous slanderer of the Sovereign Pontiff, and of the Bishops and Clergy of Canada, the obscene libeller of our Nuns and religious, the unscrupulous and mendacious instigator to outrage against the Catholic laity, and the sworn enemy to Freedom of Education in Upper Canada, and of Popery everywhere—as their political ally and colleague. We protest against the application of the honorable appellation of “Conservative” to such men; to men who on a question vitally affecting the religious and moral interests of Catholics could be found voting on the same side as Mr. George Brown, and the Clear Grits of Upper Canada.

The plain truth of the matter is that amongst our public men in Canada there are not three, we doubt if there are two, to whom it is not absurd to apply the term “Conservative” in its legitimate sense. We have but two parties in Canada; of which one is more or less infected with the abominable principles of the Revolution, and whose members are called “Rouges;” of which the other has no principles at all, and its members have no object beyond the keeping themselves and their friends in office at any price, and monopolising the patronage of the Government, in the shape of situations, contracts, and newspaper advertisements. With the first, the conscientious Catholic cannot in any manner sympathise, though he may recognise the private virtues, the integrity and amiability of very many of its members; with the second he cannot, if he has the proper pride of a gentleman, in any manner consent to identify himself, lest he too be brought into contact with Mr. George Brown, and be thereby polluted.

And it is just because there is so little of principle at stake betwixt the two contending parties, that the animosity betwixt them is so bitter and so great. Because Mr. George Brown’s political allies cannot show wherein, in principle, their policy differs from that of their opponents, they avenge themselves by denouncing those adversaries as “Rouges;” and think to justify their revolutionary policy by arrogating to themselves the title of defenders of good principles forsooth! “les bons principes“—to which title they vindicate their right by negativing such a motion as that which M. Bourassa—actuated by we care not what motives—brought forward, for securing to a Catholic minority in Upper Canada, equal rights in the matter of education, with a Protestant minority in Lower Canada. What could the reddest of the Rouges, what could the most rampant Orangeman, what could the worst enemies of the Church amongst the infidel hordes of the Revolution, do worse than this? If the 85 who voted Nay on M. Bourassa’s motion be Canadian Conservatives, and if these Conservatives be the best friends of the Church, then are her prospects poor indeed; then indeed have we good reason to invoke the help of God against such friends; then indeed, if we have the faith of Catholics, and the honorable sentiments of gentlemen, will we repudiate such friends and such defenders of our cause:

“Haud tali auxilio, non defensoribus istis.”