Document Information
Date: 1865-02-17
By: True Witness
Citation: “Strike, but hear me”, True Witness (17 February, 1865)
Other formats: TBA
“Strike, but hear me.”
Marriage and Divorce.—In replying to the notice with which the Courrier du Canada has been pleased to honor us, we will be careful not to imitate him, and not to forget those amenities which should obtain betwixt laymen Catholic journalists. It is a bad cause that the Courrier has to defend if it can be defended only by direct personal attacks upon, and by drawing into the discussion the name of, an obscure individual like the editor of this paper; and if our opponent felt that it was in his power to refute our arguments, he would do so, instead of indulging in a violent tirade against the present writer. “We have no case,” said the attorney, in his instructions to Counsel; “we have no case. Abuse the opposing party’s lawyer.” These seem to be the tactics of the Courrier du Canada. However we will not dwell upon this; we do not pretend to infallibility, and therefore we may well have erred in our judgment; but for the integrity of our motives, and purity of purpose, we can appeal with a safe conscience from the bureau of the Courrier, to Him to Whom all hearts are open, and from Whom no secrets are hid.
Our argument, to which the Courrier does not reply, which he does not so much as notice, is this: If, as the Courrier du Canada asserts, it would be “a radical error on the part of the Catholic to claim for, assign to, or recognise in, the local legislatures of the several Provinces about to be united, the legal right or attribute of legislating upon Marriage and of legalising Divorce; because, they would be thereby “claiming for these Parliaments a right which no Parliaments may arrogate to themselves, and the usurpation of which entails the penalty of anathema—”
Therefore, and for the same reason, the Catholic cannot without committing a radical error, claim for, assign to, or recognise in, the central legislature of the several Provinces about to be united, the legal right or attribute of legislating upon Marriage, and of legalising Divorce; and because he would be thereby, “claiming for that Parliament a right which no Parliament may arrogate to itself, and the usurpation of which entails the penalty of anathema.”
This is our argument; and it is for the Courrier du Canada to show wherein it is false or defective. The editor of the True Witness may be a very bad man, but for all that his argument may be a very good argument; and it is against the logic, not against the character, of the editor of this journal that the Courrier du Canada should direct his attacks. He should show that, though upon principle, the Catholic legislator is bound to vote against attributing to the local Parliament the right “of taking cognizance of divorce questions,” BECAUSE this is a right “which no Parliament may arrogate to itself;” he may with a good conscience, and without dereliction of principle, vote for attributing to the central Parliament the right “of taking cognizance of divorce questions,” ALTHOUGH this is a right which no Parliament may arrogate to itself, and the usurpation of which entails the penalty of anathema.” We quote the very words of the Courrier, and respectfully invite him to refute us if he can.—En attendant, he is, as far as we are concerned, at liberty to say as many and as hard things of us as he pleases. As with the big man who allowed his wife, a little woman, to beat him, and who gave as his reason for this forbearance on his part: “Well, it pleases her, and it don’t hurt me”—so is it with us and the Courrier du Canada.
And here, lest we be misunderstood, or as more generally happens to us, misrepresented, we take the opportunity of again asserting that, according to the principles which we hold and advocate no Catholic legislator upon any pretence whatsoever, or under any circumstances whatsoever; can directly or indirectly claim for, assign to, or recognise in, the local legislatures of the about to be united Provinces the right of legislating upon “Marriage and Divorce;” and that every Catholic legislator would be bound in conscience to vote against any measure that might be laid before him containing such a proposition, no matter how excellent that measure might be in every other respect. We hope that we have been explicit enough, and that even the Courrier du Canada will admit that we are consistent with our principles, even though those principles be erroneous.
Having proposed a question to the Courrier du Canada, it is but just that we should reply to the questions that he addresses to us, though what connection they have with the matter at issue we do not well perceive. Our somewhat irate contemporary asks us:—
“Whether we admit in right, en droit, the omnipotence of the British Parliament in civil as well as in religious matters?”
We admit the legal “omnipotence” en droit, of the British Parliament, that is to say, of Kings, Lords and Commons, in all civil matters, in the sense that, and because, there stands over and against the said Legislature no written Constitution to define or limit its legal functions; no Court of Judicature to apply that written Constitution to its acts, as a test of their legality.
We admit also the same “omnipotence” of the British Parliament in all religious matters in so far, but so far only, as “The Church as by Law Established” is concerned; because that Church is its creature, and the work of its hands.
The Courrier further asks us:—
“Do we admit the right which that Parliament arrogates to itself to declare what is, and what is not of faith, and to reform the Book of Common Prayer?”
We answer again Yes; certainly we do admit that right in so far as “The Church as by Law Established” is concerned, but no farther, and for the reason given above.
Again the Courrier asks us:—
“Do we admit the right of that Parliament to sit as a tribunal taking cognizance of Matrimonial causes and Divorce?”
And here we answer No, emphatically No, and No to all eternity; and because no Catholic can conscientiously, or without dereliction of principle, recognise, directly or indirectly, in any civil tribunal, whether called the British Parliament or the “central legislature of the British North American Confederation,” the right to take cognizance of such questions. We desire that upon this matter we should be clearly understood, even at the risk of being convicted of prolixity. Thus were we to be asked the question:—
“Has the British Parliament taken cognizance of Matrimonial causes and Divorce?”*—we should answer,—
“Yes.”
But were we, as a member of the legislature, whose vote would carry consequences, to be asked:—
“Shall the British Parliament take cognizance of Matrimonial causes and Divorce?”†—without a moment’s hesitation, and at the loudest pitch of our voice, we would answer—
“No. So help us God, at the hour of death—No.”
The Courrier will, we trust, admit that we do clearly distinguish betwixt the recognition of a fact, “la constatation du fait,” and the admission of a right, “l’admission en droit.”
Now for a practical application; for the last question addressed to us by the Courrier du Canada is strikingly applicable to our circumstances in Canada.
The members of the Provincial Legislature are called upon to vote Yea or Nay upon certain propositions contained in the Resolutions relative to the Proposed Union of the British North American Provinces; of which a copy printed by order of the Legislative Assembly, is lying before us. Amongst these propositions we find the following; and we respectfully request of the Courrier du Canada to pay attention to his Tenses, and not to confound “Has” with “Shall.”
- “There shall be a General Legislature or Parliament for the Federated Provinces, composed of a Legislative Council and a House of Commons.”—page 4.
- “The General Parliament shall have power to make Laws for the peace, welfare, and good Government of the Federated Provinces (saving the sovereignty of England) and especially laws respecting the following subjects:— “Marriage and Divorce.”
The question therefore to which the Catholic members of the Legislature are called upon to answer either Yea or Nay, is not:—
“Has the General Parliament power to make laws respecting Marriage and Divorce?” but,—
“Shall the General Parliament have power to make laws respecting Marriage and Divorce?”
To this question, in our opinion—which of course is only that of a humble layman, and which we will hold or retract at the good pleasure of the competent ecclesiastical authorities—the Catholic Legislator is in conscience bound to answer “No, so help me God, No.”
To answer “Yes” to such a question would in short be to give to the General Parliament a power which “No Parliament may arrogate to itself, and the usurpation of which entails the penalty of anathema,” according to the Courrier du Canada; for let us now consider the matter from another standpoint.
Of two things one. Either the clause which expressly attributes to the General Parliament the power of making laws on Marriage and Divorce is necessary to confer that power upon the said General Parliament—or it is not. Either the General Parliament will have the power of taking cognizance of divorce questions, even if that clause be omitted—or it will not have the power.
If the insertion and retention of the clause specified be necessary to enable the General Parliament to make laws for Marriage and Divorce; so that without it, the said Parliament will have no power to take cognizance of divorce questions—then it is evident that every Catholic legislator who votes for the insertion and retention of the offensive clause, does, to the full extent of his legislatorial power, and as far as his official votes carry consequences with them, GIVE to the General Parliament a power which it would not otherwise possess; a power which in the words of the Courrier du Canada “No Parliaments may arrogate to themselves, and the usurpation of which entails the penalty of anathema.”
But on the other hand, if the insertion and retention of the clause specified be unnecessary to enable the General Parliament to make laws for Marriage and Divorce; so that without it the said Parliament will still have the power to take cognizance of divorce questions, it is evident that the insertion and retention of the offensive clause is a gratuitous impertinence; as offensive to Catholics as it is unnecessary to Protestants; and a wanton insult to the former, whom it compels to drink the cup of humiliation to the very dregs, and whom it drags, as it were, in the wake of Mr. George Brown’s chariot to grace his triumph.
We say this because knowing that M. Taché was one of the delegates at Quebec, we are convinced that the proposition to insert that Marriage and Divorce clause did not emanate from him, who of all our public men is the one whose public career has been the most honorable and the most in harmony with Catholic principles; but it that emanated from his Protestant colleagues, and was, as it were, forced upon him against his better judgment. This is our opinion of Sir E. Taché, in which we should be sorry to be undeceived; and which, if correct, justifies us in attributing the paternity of the offensive clause to Mr. George Brown, who in Opposition has ever sought to persecute Catholics, and to arouse the fury of the Clear-Grit canaille against them; and who to day that he is in office seeks only to degrade and to humiliate them. In our opinion the last state or phase of that man is worse and more dangerous than his first.
We have gone over enough ground for one day. We have still some other questions addressed to us by the Courrier du Canada to respond to, still some other considerations to offer him, why Catholics should not in any manner be accessory to giving to, or recognising in, the about to be created central legislature a power or right which “No Parliament may arrogate to itself, and the usurpation of which entails the penalty of anathema :” but these answers, these considerations we must postpone for another week. Only this will we add:—That, if all that is required, or understood, by the Courrier du Canada, from or of the offensive “Marriage and Divorce” clause, be, that the local legislatures be debarred from legislating thereupon, we are with him heart and soul; and this this our common object can be attained by a simpler process than that of giving that right to the central legislature—to wit, by expressly prohibiting the local legislatures from legislating thereupon. The addition of such a clause to the clauses defining the functions of the several local legislatures would cause no trouble, and affect none of the other provisions of the scheme resolved upon by the Quebec delegates; and for such a prohibitory clause we could all vote with a good conscience.
- Constatation du fait.
- † L’admission en droit.