Document Information

Date: 1864-11-26
By: True Witness
Citation: “No title”, True Witness (26 November, 1864)
Other formats: TBA

Some of our contemporaries seem to misapprehend, or at all events, pretend not to understand, what is meant by that provision in the draft of a Union of the B. N. American Provinces, which assigns to the Central Legislature the right of Legislating on “Marriage and Divorce.” It is well however that there be no misunderstanding or pretended misunderstanding upon this point; and indeed so explicit and outspoken are and always has been our Protestant contemporaries, that there is no possibility of misunderstanding them, or of doubting their intentions.

The privilege of Divorce in so far as Canada is at present concerned, is an expensive luxury, of which only the rich who can afford the expense of pushing a Bill through Parliament, can avail themselves. It is therefore proposed to cheapen it, and to bring it within the reach of the poor man as well as of the rich; and for this purpose it is intended to enact one common and uniform law on the subject of sexual unions, for Catholics as well as for Protestants; to pass a general divorce law; and to establish or set up divorce courts, in which on easy terms all Her Majesty’s married subjects living unhappily together may, upon complying with certain formalities, such as adultery for instance, obtain a license or legal authority to contract fresh sexual unions. Of this, we say, there can be no possibility of doubt. “Marriage and Divorce” are to be formally committed to the central legislature in order that that body may once for all pass a general divorce law, and establish one or more cheap and nasty divorce Courts for the entire Union. Listen to what the Globe of the 21st inst., says on the subject: —The italics are our own.

“The Maritime Provinces have divorce courts already, and Canada has in Parliament a Protestant majority which has repeatedly affirmed the principle of permitting divorce in certain cases by passing special Acts of Divorce. Divorces are therefore now allowed in every part of the proposed Confederation and no more than that can be said after the Federal, Parliament has passed the expected general law upon the subject.

“It is most desirable that there should be but one law in all the Provinces on these subjects—marriage and divorce.”—Globe 21st inst.

The Witness also speaks in the same sense, and evidently anticipates not only a general divorce law, but the erection of a special Court or Courts, in which at a low rate, men and women shall be able to unmarry themselves before a Government “Jack” especially accredited for that purpose:—

All Catholic anxieties about the new Civil Code of Lower Canada, so ably expressed by Mr. De Bellefeuille, may for the time be dismissed, for the action of the Federal Parliament will entirely supersede that of the Code in matters of marriage and divorce. Were these left to the local legislatures, it is quite evident that hereafter in Lower Canada, neither priests, nor nuns, nor friars, could ever be legally married even after they had formally renounced the Church of Rome. On the other hand no Protestant would ever succeed in obtaining a divorce in Lower Canada, the Catholic majority of the Legislature always voting against it to a man, without even deigning to become acquainted with the merits of the case.

In a Federal Parliament of all the Provinces divorce sued for on reasonable grounds, may be obtained because of the large Protestant majority; indeed there will be some danger of too great facility being granted for a process which should never be allowed except on very strong grounds. It is not hard, however, to foresee that divorce will soon force itself upon the attention of the Federal Parliament as an intolerable nuisance. The cases will become plenty from the sudden increase of population, as well as from the greater probability of success, which will invite applications. Very valuable time will be consumed in examining these cases in Parliament, and this at a great expense to the country, as well as to the detriment of other legislation. The Federal Parliament will eventually be driven to the necessity of delegating its powers on marriage and divorce to a special court. But inasmuch as this transfer would be to some extent a departure from the constitution, had it not better be understood from the start that cases of marriage and divorce will not be tried before the Federal Parliament, but before a Federal Court?—Witness, 19th instant.

To the lewd and the unchaste “Confederation” as it is still farcically or hypocritically styled, will prove quite a God-send; it will as it were, inaugurate the millennium of uncleanness and impurity in Canada.

We do not to-day propose discussing the merits of the question, for as we said in our last, it is one which raises questions of faith and morals, which belong exclusively to the domain of the Church. It is for her and for her Pastors, not for us, to pronounce whether a Catholic can under any circumstances conscientiously vote for, or give his aid in establishing, such a system as that by no means dimly shadowed forth in the Globe and the Witness. There is however another aspect of the question which presents itself to us.

“Marriage” is the basis of the “Family:” the Family again is the basis of all property, for without property there can be no “Family,” and without the “Family” there can be no property.

Now what we do not clearly understand is this. How, if “Marriage” that is to say the basis of the “Family,” is to be a matter exclusively under the control of the central government, “property and civil rights” can—[according to the 43 section and 15th clause of the Union scheme as published in the Globe]—be the subject matter of the legislation of those paltry municipal councils called local legislatures. All rights of property and inheritance, and most civil rights in short, are determined by the laws which regulate and define “Marriage and the Family.” If these then be assigned to the central government, is it not a farce to pretend that to the local legislatures, or municipalities will be left “the right to legislate on property and civil rights?”