« AnkstesnisTęsti »
and the Society of Jesus, "the invincible fortress of ultramontanism," set forth as the chief foe they feared. Against Laval University, again, charges of Gallican and liberal leanings were freely brought, and a strong and persistent endeavor was made to lessen its influence by establishing in Montreal a university under the bishop's control. The attack was not meekly endured. As the Ultramontane chronicler reports: "They marched proudly under the command of their valiant bishops Laflèche and Bourget, but finding in the foremost ranks, at the head of the enemy forces, Laval University and Archbishop Taschereau, their arms were paralyzed and their spirits troubled."
Even old political friends were not spared. Cartier was not forgiven for taking the side of the seminary and the civil powers in the contest over the Montreal parishes, and the hostility of the church contributed heavily to his defeat in the general election of 1872. At his death a year later the "Le Nouveau Monde" very frankly exposed his fault: Savaëte, "Vers l'Abime," ii, p. 100.
The epoch of Mr. Cartier's greatest power was also the epoch when the errors which were to prove fatal developed. Thinking himself invincible, he forgot the source whence he derived his strength. He forgot that if he had become the leader of Lower Canada it was simply because he had identified himself with the Catholic cause, devoted himself to the defense of the Church, and never feared to avow himself eminently Catholic and a submissive child of the Church. From 1865 he had taken an active part in the difficulties excited by the affair of the division of the parish of Montreal, and had impelled his organ and his friends into the path of opposition and persecution which has ended so deplorably for himself. The attempt in which he persisted with so great perseverance to defeat the projects of his Bishop and procure the annulment of canonical decrees by the civil tribunals, destroyed the confidence of Catholics and brought on the ruin of the colossus.
Not content with indirect control, the Ultramontane school determined in 1871 to enter the political field openly and
aggressively. Early in that year a group of editors and lawyers, all deepdyed Conservatives, and all, in their own words, "belonging heart and soul to the ultramontane school," gathered in Montreal to consider how best to advance their cause. The group included F. X. A. Trudel, a prominent member of the Assembly; A. B. Routhier, L. O. Taillon, and other lawyers; and the leading Ultramontane editors, Alphonse Desjardins of "L'Ordre," Magloire Macleod of the "Journal des Trois-Rivières," M. Renault of the "Courrier du Canada," and C. Beausoleil, the editor, and Canon Lamarche, the censor, of "Le Nouveau Monde." They decided, after recalling the effective work Louis Veuillot had done in France by his uncompromising stand, to launch a movement for organizing a Catholic party, or, rather, for purging the Conservative party of the anti-clerical elements which were creeping in. A manifesto embodying their views was drawn up by M. Routhier, revised by Mgr. Laflèche, approved by Mgr. Bourget, and published first in the "Journal des Trois-Rivières" on April 20, 1871.
The "Catholic Programme," as the manifesto was termed, was devised to guide aright the Catholic voters in the approaching provincial elections. Taking as its starting-point a pastoral of Mgr. Laflèche exhorting the people to choose legislators who would safeguard the interests of the church, the program declared that since the separation of church and state was an absurd and impious doctrine, and legislators would therefore have to do with matters ecclesiastical, it was essential for Catholics to choose men who gave full and unreserved adhesion to the religious, political, and social doctrines of their church. Protestants, of course, would have the same liberty. This involved, as a rule, the support of the Conservative party as the only one offering valid guaranties for the interests of religion, but the support should not be blind. Only those candidates should be chosen who would agree to modify the laws of the province in regard to education, marriage, the erection of parishes and other matters, in the way demanded by the bishops. In detail, this meant:
"1, if the contest is between two Conservatives, it goes without saying that we shall support the one who accepts the platform we have just outlined; 2, if, on the contrary, it is between a Conservative of any shade whatever and an adept of the liberal school, our sympathies will be given actively to the former; 3, if the only candidates who come forward in a constituency are both liberals or oppositionists, we must choose
Mgr. Ignace Bourget, Bishop of Montreal 1799-1885
whichever will agree to our terms; 4, finally, in the event that the contest lies between a Conservative who rejects our programme and an opportunist of any brand who accepts it, the position would be more delicate. To vote for the former would be to contradict the doctrine we have just expounded; to vote for the latter would be to imperil the Conservative party, which we wish to see strong. What decision should we make as between these two dangers? In this case we should advise Catholic electors to abstain from voting."
This extraordinary document was republished and supported by "Le Nouveau Monde," the "Franc Parleur," the
"Ordre," the "Courrier du Canada," the "Union des Cantons de l'Est," and the "Pionnier de Sherbrooke." Several members of the Assembly hastened to proclaim their adhesion. But "La Minerve" and the erstwhile clerical "Journal de Québec" flatly and vigorously denounced the manifesto as an insufferable affront. More significant still was the publication of a letter, on April 26, from Archbishop Taschereau, stating that he knew of the document only through the newspapers, and that it therefore lay under the grave disability of having been drawn up wholly without any participation by the episcopacy; no member of the clergy was authorized to exceed the limits laid down by the Fourth Council of Quebec. This disavowal did not deter the two episcopal champions of Ultramontanism. Both issued pastorals approving its doctrines, and stated publicly and explicitly that they indorsed the program, Mgr. Bourget adding that he considered it the surest safeguard for a truly Conservative party.
When the provincial elections of 1871, in which Wilfrid Laurier was returned for Drummond-Arthabaska, were over, the Liberals found themselves once more in a small minority. A group of moderate Liberals determined to make a fresh start and blot out the tradition of anticlericalism which barred their path to power. Under the leadership of Louis A. Jetté, a Montreal barrister, the endeavor was made to reorganize the Liberal party as the Parti National. The new label was accepted, though without enthusiasm, by the old Rouges, and fresh recruits were gathered in circles friendly to the clergy. The Parti National stood for Canada first and last, had a leaning toward protection, and expressed the friendliest feelings toward the clergy, though still solicitous to prevent their robes being soiled in the mire of politics. A new journal, "Le National," was established in Montreal to voice its views, and the "Bien Public" of the same city, and "L'Electeur" and "L'Evénement" of Quebec, gave it general support.1
1".. We are a national party because, before all, we are attached to our nation, and because we have pledged our unswery ng loyalty to Canada above the whole world: Canada against the world. ... Le National will be a political and non-religious paper, but, as the special organ of the Catholic population, and in conformity with the opinions of the directors of the journal, when occasion arises, we shall concur with Catholic opinion, and we repudiate in advance any thing which may inadvertently be overlooked in the rapid editing of a daily paper, in order to protest our entire devotion and our filial obedience to the Church." Opening manifesto of "Le National," April 24, 1872.
The effect of the new tactics was seen in the increased Liberal representation in the federal elections of 1872, and particularly in the defeat of the veteran Cartier himself by Jetté in Montreal East. In the latter election there was open alliance between the Parti National and the Ultramontanes against their common foe. But the reconciliation did not prove lasting. The great bulk of the clergy looked upon this sudden repentance as merely a ruse, and the fighting class among the old Rouges were uneasy in their unwonted company. Gradually the transformation was reversed, the former chieftains again took control, and the Parti National faded into the Liberal party once more. When the Liberal party came to power in Ottawa after the exposure of the Pacific scandal, it was the old Rouge leaders, Letellier, Fournier, Laflamme, Geoffrion, who were taken into the cabinet, not the Jettés. The appointment of Cauchon was the only concession made to the new allies.
Writing to James Young in July, 1874, Mr. Laurier explains the situation:
The Nouveau Monde party have been clamorous to have Jetté installed in office. You want to know the reason. Here it is. The Nouveau Monde party are not Liberals: they are of the worst class of Conservatives -they are Ultramontanes.
That party have been instrumental in making Cartier what he was amongst us. They took him when he was nothing, and for years fought all his battles. They approved of everything he said or did, they represented him as a pillar of the altar, and they poured the blessings of the Church over all his scandals. Cartier, as long as he was weak and needy, humiliated his despotic nature to them, and was in their hands a pliant tool. But when, after Confederation, he found himself supported by an overwhelming majority, he gave free vent to his own haughty nature. He did nothing against them, it is true, but he treated them as inferiors, and no longer submissively kissed their hands: that was enough to alienate their affections. He did still more: he gave them to understand very freely that he was the master, that he could rule and would rule without them.
The Ultramontanes were incensed with
rage, but what could they do? Cartier knew perfectly what he was about. They had too long proclaimed him a little saint, to brand him now as a heretic or an enemy of the Church. Cartier knew perfectly well that they would not dare to undo their own work.
They then adopted a new tactics. (Is this English, by the way?) They made a movement forward in the doctrine. Cartier was yet a good man, but he could be better. He had too much of the Liberal ideas in him; though he had been a servant of the Church, he had not in him the true spirit of the Church in all its purity.
Our friend Jetté, who is clever, and has always been known as a moderate Liberal, adopted this new programme. In return, he was adopted both by the Ultramontanes, on account of his avowed principles, and by the Liberals, on account of his supposed tendencies. Since, then, Jetté has always acted with us, and in the same time, has always been careful to keep on good terms with the Ultramontanes. And this is the reason why they have been so zealous to get him a seat in the Cabinet. They want to have there a representative of their own principles.
The Parti National diversion had failed to avert the wrath of the Ultramontane crusaders. More convinced than ever that even moderate Liberals were incorrigible, they renewed their endeavor to place submissive politicians in control of the local government. Developments in the provincial field soon provided an opportunity. The Conservative government of Gédéon Ouimet, who had succeeded Chauveau as premier in 1873, was forced to resign in September, 1874, as the result of charges of administrative corruptionthe Tanneries or "land-swap" scandal. The Ouimet cabinet had consisted mainly of the Cartier wing of the Conservative party. Charles de Boucherville, who formed the new administration, was one of the leading lay adherents of the program. When the general provincial elections followed in July, 1875, the whole weight of the Ultramontane wing of the clergy was thrown to their support. The Liberals were nearly annihilated. Their leader, Henri Joly de Lotbinière, who was a Protestant, offered to resign on the
ground that his religion was a handicap to his party; but his supporters in the House denied that the Ultramontanes could be any more hostile to a Protestant than to a Catholic liberal, and insisted on his retaining his post.
The activities of the majority in the new legislature soon justified its Ultramontane backers. In the first session three significant acts were passed. One was designed to prevent a second Guibord appeal to to the courts. It declared the right of the ecclesiastical authorities to designate the place in the cemetery where each person was to be buried, and provided that, if according to the canonical rules and in the opinion of the bishop any deceased person could not be buried in consecrated ground with liturgical prayers, he should receive civil burial in ground adjoining the cemetery. A second law gave civil confirmation to the action of Bishop Bourget in dividing the parish of Montreal, a marginal note, later explained away as an inexact expression of a compiler, declared that "decrees of our Holy Father the Pope are binding." Most important was the establishment of
Catholic education was given to a committee consisting of the bishops and an equal number of appointed laymen, the bishops, however, alone enjoying the right to be represented by proxy. Control of Protestant schools was confided as fully and freely to a Protestant committee. It was urged that it was desirable to remove education from politics, and that the freedom given the Protestant minority was a proof of liberality and tolerance; but the fact remained that the measure was a concession to the element which opposed state control over education and other matters declared to be within the church's sphere.
The next concerted action was the issuing of a joint pastoral on the political situation. The council of bishops had on several occasions issued advice on political issues to clergy and laity; the second council, of 1858, urged the clergy to be neutral in political issues where religion was not involved; the third, in 1863, condemned secret societies and the plague of evil newspapers; the fourth, in 1868, criticized the assertion that religion had nothing to do with politics; and the fifth, in 1873, attacked, but in brief and vague terms, that false serpent, Catholic liberalism, and asserted that the church was independent of the state and superior to it. Now in September, 1875, Archbishop Taschereau was induced to join the other bishops of the province in issuing a joint letter, designed, as the latter stated, "to shut the mouths of those who, to sanction their false doctrines, find pretexts for escaping the teachings of their own bishop by invoking the authority of other bishops which unfortunately they abuse, deceiving the good people."
education upon a wholly denominational basis, and the restriction of state control by making the superintendent a civil servant instead of a cabinet member, as formerly. Control of
The joint pastoral of September, 1875, was mainly a warning against Catholic