Document Information

Date: 1864-07-08
By: True Witness
Citation: “Personal”, True Witness (8 July, 1864)
Other formats: TBA

PERSONAL.

—We greatly dislike personal explanations: they savor of egotism, they cannot be of any general interest, and yet the necessity of making them is sometimes imposed upon us. Our readers will pardon us, therefore, if we enter upon an explanation personal to ourselves.

“Is it not unjust” it has been asked by one whom we respect, and who would not unintentionally misrepresent us—“is it not unjust for the TRUE WITNESS of the 24th of June to accuse the present Ministry of having sacrificed the interests of religion, morality and the autonomy of Lower Canada?” To this we would reply by moving a previous question—Did the TRUE WITNESS of the 24th June make any such charge against the Ministry? We reply, No—nor can we conceive how such a construction can have been put on its language. Let us refer to our own columns of the date indicated.

We argued that history showed that all coalitions were fatal to those who became parties thereunto, because they shook or destroyed all confidence in public men. We argued that as the physical laws cannot be violated with impunity, so neither can the laws of public morality be violated without retribution on the offenders. And therefore, speaking hypothetically, as of a case that might indeed arrive, we concluded that, if the Ministry were to be guilty of certain dereliction of principles: were they to sacrifice the moral and religious interests of Lower Canada, swift and speedy punishment would inevitably find them out. And immediately after this argument, and by way of showing that we accused the Ministry of nothing, because we were in total ignorance of their acts and intentions, we added:— “As we write, the results of the negotiations are unknown.” How then, if we admitted that we were perfectly ignorant of the results of the negotiations—negotiations which at the time of writing we hoped and firmly believed would be broken off—could we have been such fools as to have pretended that we were acquainted with those same results? This simple consideration must in the opinion of every impartial person acquit us of injustice towards, or prejudging the conduct of, the Ministry, in an issue referred to. Surely if any one in this business has the right to complain of injustice, or having been misrepresented, it is the editor of the TRUE WITNESS. But he does not complain, because he is confident that he has only been misunderstood, and that they who have so misunderstood him, will be the very first to do him justice, when their involuntary error is pointed out to them. Here are our very words which we reproduce from the TRUE WITNESS of the 24th ultimo:— “The laws of morality can no more be violated with impunity than can the physical laws. * * * Political vigor and endurance are impossible to any party in the State, which outrages the canons of political morality.”

This was our thesis, or general proposition, which we proceeded to apply hypothetically. Therefore, we argued, if the Ministry do so and so,—though we do not pretend to affirm what they will do, and we know nothing of their intentions—if they pursue a particular line of policy, they will be driven from office by an indignant people. “Thus, though we do not pretend to affirm, that the present Ministry and Mr. George Brown will not coalesce, will not agree to certain terms and mutual dereliction of principles—the one consenting to sacrifice the independence of the Catholic Church, the interests of religion, of morality and education and the autonomy of Lower Canada; the other suppressing for the nonce his obscene ribaldry against our Clergy &c.,—we have no hesitation in expression our firm assurance that a Cabinet so formed will be of but short duration.”

And then we added:— “As we write the results of the negotiations are unknown;” thus showing that we pretended not to hazard any opinion whatsoever of the actual conduct or intentions of the Ministry, since that conduct and those intentions were altogether unknown to us. All that we affirmed was this: that if they behaved in such and such a manner—of which, however we pretended to affirm nothing—their fate as a Ministry would be quickly sealed.

If we are told that such an hypothesis was an act of injustice to the Ministry, we beg leave to differ in opinion on this point. The doctrine of the “inamissibility of justice” may be held by Lutherans, but it is certainly condemned by the Council of Trent, Sess. VI. can. xxiii. The holiest and most mortified of saints, whilst in the flesh, is liable to fall into mortal sin; and were he so to fall, and in that state to die, he would assuredly be damned. This is a truth of the Catholic Church, and no one should deem it an insult to be told that he is liable to fall, and to be warned against the consequences. The best of men must still work out their salvation with fear and trembling: how much more then may we fear for men involved in the distracting conflicts of party politics, and therefore under the greatest temptations to go astray! Of the most rigid of ascetics we would not dare “to affirm” that he would never yield to the lusts of the flesh: of the most perfect of Christians we would not dare to affirm that, his salvation was certain, so long as he was upon earth. “Nemo quoque, quam diu in hac mortalitate vivitur . . . usque adeo præsumere debet, ut certo statuat se omnino esse in numero prædestinatorum.” Conc. Trid. Sess. VI. c. 12: how then can any one dare to affirm of a Minister, whilst still in office, and exposed to all the allurements of ambition, that he will never lapse, never fall into grievous political sin—and sacrifice the interests that he was appointed to guard!

These considerations we respectfully submit to our critics, in full confidence that they will admit the error into which they have been led, perhaps because want of clearness in our language. But our intention in our article of the 24th June is, and must be obvious from the fact that at the time of writing we confessed our utter ignorance of the acts and intentions of the Ministers; and that our words were meant solely as a warning—and a warning considering the circumstances, not uncalled for—will also be obvious from the context with which they should be taken.

It has also been objected to us that we have reproached one member of the Legislative Council, by name for not voting against the Divorce Bill; but have neglected to censure the far more reprehensible conduct of M. Panet, a member of the Legislative Council, and reputed a Catholic, who actually voted for the Bill.

We reply that M. Panet’s vote had escaped our notice, but that we cheerfully avail ourselves of the opportunity now presented to us of repairing our neglect by making public, and holding up to reprobation a vote disgraceful to a Catholic.

For the rest, and in justice to ourselves, our consistency and impartiality, we will only observe that in 1859 we failed not to denounce the timid and un-Catholic policy of those of our Ministers and representatives who—the Parliament then sitting in a Protestant City—allowed the McLean Divorce Bill to pass without an energetic protest. To the best of our recollection only one member of the Cabinet at that time—M. Langevin—spoke out boldly, and in terms becoming a Catholic gentleman, against that Bill which established a dangerous precedent; and by condemning the Ministry of that day—as we did—for their dereliction of duty, we not only acquired the right, but we contracted the obligation to censure a similar dereliction in others. We have but one standard of right and wrong which we apply impartially to all men, whether in or out of office: and indeed considering that the former, or Ministers, have been more trusted, than have others; and that we have therefore the right to expect from them more even than we expect from those to whom we have not so specially committed the care of our interests, “it seems to us that dereliction of duty on the part of a Minister should by us be more severely censured than we censure the short comings of non-official members of the Legislature.

It is not our wish however to stir up old grievances. At the present moment all Catholics, all French Canadians especially, should be united: and forgetting all ancient quarrels, should combine to defend their laws, their language, and their religion—in a word their Church and their nationality. These, if we be true to ourselves, may well be secured; but we must be united, vigilant, and disinterested. This is no time for party squabbles.