about the turn their thoughts and policy will take, if they have inherited what has been called the saving common sense of our race. They will say that these responsibilities can only be met by a united, and a closely united, empire" (a).

In Profosser Egerton's last book there is the following:

"In broad contrast with the United States after the war of independence, and with the Dominion, the Commonwealth, and the Union of British South Africa, the British Empire has already reached a stage of developement at which its component parts consist of communities with most of the attributes of distinct nations. The most keen-sighted of imperialists now recognize that what is necessary is a federation of nations, not of provinces" (b).

And Mr. Reginald V. Harris (the winner of the prize offered by The Standard of Empire for the best essay on "The Governance of Empire") has said:

"There seems to be in short, a virtual declaration on their (the Dominion's) part for autonomy first and combination afterwards. Nor does it appear that any other solution of the problem would be either advisable or possible."

That language is to nationalists very welcome and very inspiring. To the rank and file of imperialists, it ought, I think, to come as almost conclusive argument against cessation of further opposition to nationalism.

I must, however, not appear to ask their assistance, or even their neutrality on the ground that nationalism is a step and not an end. I believe that so far as political connection is concerned, it will be a finality. But I also most firmly believe that it will be only the commencement of a new Canadian life of a life in which a strong unifying Canadian sentiment will quickly spread from Sydney to Victoria, and which just because it has unified, just because it has become national, just because it has found its expression in the universal use of one Canadian flag, and just because the long-drawn struggle for constitutional freedom has ended, will be the better able to respond to the friendships which bind together the ocean-separated subjects of the same great king.

I trust, gentlemen, that I have succeeded, at all events to some extent, in dissipating from your minds the two principal difficulties which appear to stand in the way of popular acceptance of the elevation of our country to that dignity of international position, in which she shall be treated not as a political satellite, not as a colony regulated from Downing Street, but as herself a member, and an important member of the great family of the nations of the world.

(a) It is noteworthy that at the last general election for the first time in the history of Canada a somewhat influential association believed that votes could be obtained by the advocacy of a platform which had for its first object: "To promote, especially among those of British birth and origin, the sense of Canadian Nationality, as an increasing power within the British Empire" (19th Cent. January, 1912, p. 180)

(b) Federations and Unions in the British Empire. pp. 100, 101.

NE TEMERE DECREE

To refer the Lancaster bill to the courts was ridiculous, but very much the best thing to do. Religious prejudice has been aroused, and it will be allayed not by reason (that has never been of the least avail), but by lapse of time. People have been made to believe that the Quebec courts are engaged in enforcing the Ne Temere decree, and that the Church of Rome claims the right to supersede Canadian laws. There is not the slightest word of truth in either of the statements, but until a little time has elapsed nothing that can be said will have the least influence upon those whose education and temperament lead them to regard the Catholic Church as their enemy, and to believe any charge that anybody may make against it.

But there are many, very many, Protestants who are not in that class. All through this controversy they have been trying to get at the truth and the facts. They have been worried, and, some of them, misled. But they are perfectly open-minded, and will, perhaps, not regret the devotion of a few more of my pages to the subject.

Why is it ridiculous to refer to the courts a question as to the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament to pass the Lancaster Bill? Read it and you will see:

"1. The Marriage Act, Chapter 105 of the revised Statutes, 1906, is amended by adding thereto the following section:

"3. Every ceremony or form of marriage heretofore or hereafter performed by any person authorized to perform any ceremony of marriage by the laws of the place where it is performed, and duly performed according to such law, shall everywhere within Canada be deemed a to be a valid marriage, notwithstanding any differences in the religious faith of the person so married and without regard to the religion of the person performing the ceremony.

"2. The rights and duties, as married people, of the respective persons married as aforesaid, and the children of such marriage, shall be absolute and complete, and no law or canonical degree or custom of or in any province in Canada shall have any force or effect to invalidate or qualify any such marriage or any of the rights of the said persons or their children in any manner whatsoever.

In other words:

1. Every marriage shall be a legal marriage, no matter what the religion of the parties may be.

2. The rights and duties of the parties to a legal marriage and

their children shall be absolute and complete.

3. No canonical decrees shall invalidate a legal marriage.

If the absurdity of a reference to the courts of such a bill be not at once apparent to you, ask what would be thought of similar treatment of the following bill:

1. Every legal contract shall be a legal contract, no matter what the religion of the parties may be.

2. The rights and duties of the parties to a legal contract, and their executors, shall be absolute and complete.

3. No canonical decrees shall invalidate a legal contract.

Not a single member of parliament (or anybody else) would think of asking the Privy Council whether the Dominion had jurisdiction to pass that bill. Why? Because it says nothing and does nothing that which is legal shall be legal, that is all. So also the Lancaster bill. Listen to what its author himself said as to his bill:

“The bill does not say a word about how people shall be married, but says that if they are lawfully married, by any ceremony performed in a province, they shall remain married although their religious belief is different" (a).

But if people are lawfully married, they remain married whether parliament so declares or not. The bill says nothing and does nothing; and does anyone suggest that the courts should be asked to say whether the Dominion can do nothing? Curiously enough that is what is going to be done or rather what the government has said that it is going to do, and, from my point of view (a desire to get people to understand rather than to antagonise each other) the move is a good one. I am unable, indeed, to see, exactly, how we are going to avoid being laughed at, but that is a small price to pay for the time necessary for the quieting of our nerves.

The debate in the house will do much to rob the air of its electricity. If Mr. Lancaster's bill was inartistic in its drafting, he was clear enough as to the point which he had in mind. He imagined that the Catholic church was asserting a claim to override Canadian laws; he thought that there existed some doubt as to the validity of the claim; and he wanted an assertion of the supremacy of the state-law. He said:

"This country wants the issue faced, and it has got to be faced:—who is to decide as to the legitimacy of our children, the church or the parliament of Canada? Don't let us run away from it. Our children will bless us if we settle the matter." "The question is this: If the church says that this or that is to decide the legitimacy of the children and the state of married people, is that to be the law of the land or is parliament to be able to say: That is not the law. But

(a) Hansard, January 22, 1912, p. 1685.

parliament-inade-law must prevail. That is the issue; that is what we have to deal with" (a).

I think it probable that the debate must have convinced Mr. Lancaster of the error of his assumptions, for it established beyond possibility of controversy the following points:

1. The Catholic church makes no such claim as that imagined by Mr. Lancaster.

2. No member of the house made any such claim. Leading Catholics disavowed it.

3. Nobody pretends that there is any doubt as to the supremacy of state-law over church-law.

Probably readers of these Papers will be glad to have those points substantiated. Mr. Borden said:

"Now my hon. friend, in the very able address which he has delivered, has spoken of the relation of the church and state in this country with regard to this matter. So far as that is concerned, every one of us knows that under the laws of Canada, and under the laws of every province in Canada, the decree of any church cannot invalidate the civil law. That is perfectly manifest" (b).

Mr. Burnham referring to Mr. Borden's statement said:

"He has laid down the broad general principles which underlie the supremacy of the state. He has shown that the church cannot override the state. To my mind that is broad enough to repel any ecclesiastical decree, enactment, or laws of any description whatever. He has also said, as I understood him, that the civil law alone validates marriage, and that no church can be recognized as supreme on that, question. What could be more explicit, what more likely to quiet the agitation in this country than this doctrine laid down by the great statesman at the head of this government? There is no uncertain sound about it" (c).

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:

"There has been an impression that the Ne Temere decree was intended to override the authority of His Majesty the King and the parliament. As a Catholic I protest against any such interpretation. There is no such intention” (d).

When Mr. Doherty was speaking the following exchanges took

place:

(a) Ibid. pp. 1647,8.

(b) Ibid. p. 1663.

(c) Ibid. p. 1675.

(d) Ibid. p. 1677.

MR. CARROLL. Has the promulgation of the Ne Temere degree in the province of Quebec affected the civil law as it stood before the decree was promulgated in Canada?

MR. DOHERTY. Not one iota.

MR. CARROLL. Nor in any other province of Canada ?

MR. DOHERTY. I cannot speak with familiarity of the laws of the other provinces, but I have never heard that it did. However, for what professional reputation I may have, I have no hesitation in stating on the proposition, that the law of the province of Quebec on marriage is the same to-day as it was before the Ne Temere decree was enacted.

SIR WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear.

MR. MACDONALD. Does the hon. gentleman say that there con be no application in the courts of Quebec of any provisions or results of the Ne Temere decree?

MR. DOHERTY. That is certainly my unhesitating opinion (a).

Mr. Pelletier referring to the effect of the debate upon some of the members said that some of them were saying:

"Why, this is a strange thing, we are now told that the Ne Temere decree is not in force in any of the nine provinces of Canada. Sir, the Ne Temere decree has no civil effect in the country, and I know whereof I speak. No one of the Roman Catholic hierarchy pretends for a moment that the Ne Temere decree has any civil or legal effect in Canada" (b).

He read from the tablet (the organ of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster) in confirmation of what he said (c) and added

"This is the universal opinion of all Catholics of this country. The Roman Catholic church does not intend to impose its views on different religious beliefs or different religions. It is preposterous to say that, and I hope and trust that before long, if there are any people in this country who still believe that to be the case, they will come to a better knowledge and understanding of the whole position" (d).

From that debate (a credit to the Canadian parliament and to every man who took part in it)-from that effort to elucidate and understand the subject from that perfect demonstration that the Catholic church makes no claim to override the law of the state, turn to the memorandum recently "issued by the committee appointed by the General Synod of the Church of England in Canada." It may be divided into three parts-one of them is an assertion that the Catholic church does make the claim just referred to, and the other two are most successful refutations of any such claim. The purpose of the memorandum is stated in the opening sentence:

(a) Ibid. pp. 1687, 88, 91.

(b) Ibid. p. 1726.

(c) The extract may be found, ante, p. 128.

(d) Hansard, January 22, 1912, p. 1727.