This is a reproduction of a book from the McGill University Library 
 collection. 
 
 Title: History of the Guibord case : ultramontanism versus law and 
 
 human rights 
 
 Publisher, year: Montreal : “Witness” Printing House, 1875 
 
 The pages were digitized as they were. The original book may 
 have contained pages with poor print. Marks, notations, and other 
 marginalia present in the original volume may also appear. For wider 
 or heavier books, a slight curvature to the text on the inside of pages 
 may be noticeable. 
 
 ISBN of reproduction: 978-1-926748-55-9 
 
 This reproduction is intended for personal use only, and may not be 
 reproduced, re-published, or re-distributed commercially. For further 
 information on permission regarding the use of this reproduction 
 contact McGill University Library. 
 
 McGill University Library 
 www.mcgill.ca/library 
 
Witness Publish in.;: House, Montreal. 
 
 MONTREAL “ WITNESS ” PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 E VERY history of the Guibord case Must contain numerous reference;. » 0 the 
 Montreal Witness. The first objection taken against i 1 k nsti ^ ^ a na- 
 dien by the ecclesiastical authorities was, tha ' the Witness the 
 Canadien were amongst the papers taken by h ; and yearly ever since, this 1 ; - >ur . 
 nal has received special attention from the Bishop, whose efforts to impair its iu. 
 fluence and cause its death, have been unremitting. But, notwithstanding this'* - 
 great opposition, the WITNESS has steadily increased in circulation, and now 
 stands firmer than ever before in the sympathies ol the public from the many rude 
 shakes which it has successfully withstood. 
 
 By its various editions, it adapts itself to the means and convenience of 
 every one. 
 
 The Daily Witness is but $3.00 per year, including postage, and thus is 
 one of the cheapest newspapers in America. It has foftr edr ions di_. /, bringing 
 the news by telegraph and otherwise to the latest moment. It has special co r- 
 respondents in all parts of Canada and throughout the United States, whose duty 
 it is to record anything of importance there occurring. Its fourth page contains 
 reading matter for the family circle, and is considered of much mot value than 
 the whole cost of the paper. Send your name O’ oostal card for sample. 
 
 THE TRI-WEEKLY WITNESS 
 
 Contains all the reading matter of the Daily but v- advertisements and the local 
 news,'which is condensed ; and is much prized l .fillisters, teachers, and paS*" 
 fessional men generally. Price, $2.00 per annum, postage included. Send your 
 name on postal card for sample. 
 
 THE WEEKLY WITNESS 
 
 Is one of the cheapest papers in. the world. It is a very large, eight-page paper, 
 and contains everything to make it valuable and instructive — news, reports of 
 important meetings, markets, family reading, tales, sketches, &c., &c. Price, 
 $1. 10, postage included. Send your name on postal cart for sample. 
 
 THE NEW DOMINION 'MONTHLY 
 
 Is an eighty-page magazine. It thus makes a yearly volu of 960 pages, while 
 its price is but $1.50 per annum; Send your name on posit i card for sample. 
 
 THE NORTHERN MESSENGER. 
 
 The popularity of this paper is guaranteed by the fact that, during the last twelve 
 months, its circulation was doubled, being now over 30,000 
 
 It is a well-illustrated, eight-page, semi-monthly paper; contains the In- 
 ternational series of Sunday School Lessons, and much instructive reading matter. 
 Price but 30 cents a year, with reductions for clubs and Sunday Schools. Send 
 your name oft postal card for sample copies. 
 
 (CONTINUED ON THIRD PAGE OF COVER.) 
 
BISHOP BOURGET, 
 
HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 ULTRAMONTANISM 
 
 VERSUS 
 
 LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS. 
 
 Cursed is he who maintains that in a conflict between the civil and ecclesiasti- 
 cal laws, the civil law should prevail. — Syllabus, Prop. xlii. 
 
 Individual servitude, however abject, will not satisfy the party now dominant 
 in the Latin Church — the State must also be a slave. * * * * No one can 
 
 become her convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing 
 his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another. — Gladstone. 
 
 ^onifcat : 
 
 *' WITNESS” PRINTING HOUSE, 218 AND 220 ST. JAMES STREET. 
 
 1875 . 
 
HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 I. 
 
 L’INSTITUT CANADIEN. 
 
 The conflict which has arisen in this country between the 
 ecclesiastical and the civil authorities over the burial of Joseph 
 Guibord, is but an episode in the wider conflict between modern 
 Ultramontanism and freedom of thought. The Guibord case is 
 a consequence of the efforts of the Roman Catholic Bishop of, 
 Montreal to suppress a national literary society known as l’lnsti- 
 tut tianadien. 
 
 This institution has played an important part in the intellect- 
 ual and political history of the people of this Province during the 
 last thirty years, and as it has a close connection with certain 
 passing events which are destined to become historical, it may 
 be of interest to notice a few of the more salient points which 
 have marked its rise and progress up to the present time. 
 
 ITS FOUNDERS. 
 
 On the evening of the 17th December, 1844, a number of 
 young men assembled in a room on Little St. James street and 
 organized a literary society, to which they gave the name of 
 “ Institut Canadien.” Their object was to cultivate a pure spirit 
 of patriotism, to obtain instruction, and, by discussions and essays, 
 to prepare themselves for the honorable activities of life. Full 
 of the ardent and generous enthusiasm of youth, and inspired 
 with a fine ambition to acquire distinction for themselves and 
 their country, these young Canadians adopted as their motto the 
 noble words, “ Altius Tendimus," and selected for their coat of 
 arms the figure of a beehive with the words beneath, “ Travail et 
 Concorde 
 
4 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE 
 
 The following is the first list of officers elected by the 
 Institute: — President, A. C. Nelson; ist Vice do., P. R. Lafrenaye ; 
 2nd Vice do., Joseph Laurin ; Recording Secretary, A Gerin 
 Lajoie ; Assistant Recording Secretary, M. Allard ; Corresponding 
 Secretary, O. Morin ; Assistant Corresponding Secretary, E. 
 Malhiot ; Treasurer, Ed. Fournier ; Librarian, L. Racine ; Assist- 
 ant Librarian, L. Delorme. 
 
 Before this time there was not a single French public library 
 in Montreal, or reading-room where French papers could be seen. 
 The Institute very soon became the centre of the activity, in- 
 telligence and talent among the young men of the city, and at 
 their weekly meetings they publicly discussed the important 
 questions of the day, and listened to the reading of a carefully 
 prepared essay by one of their number. In a little volume pub- 
 lished in 1855, we find reprinted the essays of four of the mem- 
 bers, viz., Messrs. Joseph Doutre, J. B. E. Dorion, C. E. Laberge, 
 and P. E. Lafrenaye, in which are eloquently set forth large and 
 liberal views of society, government, commerce and kindred sub- 
 jects. It is easy to understand how free discussion among the 
 members, along with varied reading and studies, should have 
 developed 
 
 GENEROUS AND LIBERAL IDEAS, 
 
 and a wider view of many public questions. The Institute in- 
 creased so rapidly in popularity and influence that it began to 
 excite the jealousy of the clergy. The latter could not bear to 
 see so important an intellectual movement going on indepen- 
 dently of themselves. As they beheld the growing intelligence 
 and power of these young Canadians, left to the unfettered ex- 
 ercise of their own minds, they began to tremble lest the sceptre 
 of intellectual authority they had so long been accustomed to 
 wield might be about to depart from their hands. That a number of 
 individuals should unite to form a mutual improvement society 
 and for the pursuit of knowledge, without they, the .clergy, being 
 present to direct and control the members, seemed to them a 
 circumstance fraught with the gravest danger to their own supre- 
 macy over the minds of those persons composing the Institute. 
 Moreover, this intellectual renaissance was spreading all over the 
 country, and nearly every town and large village had its Insti- 
 
l’institut canadien. 
 
 5 
 
 tute, fashioned after the original one in Montreal. The flower 
 of Canadian youth were making a common movemeht towards 
 higher and better things. This spectacle, so cheering to the 
 heart of the true patriot, was - witnessed by the clergy with dis- 
 may, and they resolved to extinguish the Montreal Institute and 
 its numerous offshoots throughout the Province. The work 
 which they set themselves to do was to stifle one of the noblest 
 impulses that ever arose among the Canadian people, and one 
 which, had it been encouraged, would have by this time raised 
 the French-Canadian race to a far higher place among peoples 
 than that which it now occupies. Well may the Canadian patriot 
 and lover of his race mourn when he sees how far the Romish 
 Church was successful in arresting this movement so bright with 
 promise, and in folding once more around the people the mantle 
 of intellectual darkness and spiritual tyranny. 
 
 NEW INSTITUTES FOUNDED. 
 
 It has been shown that the idea of the Montreal Institute ex- 
 tended to other places in the country. In 1852 similar societies 
 had been formed in Quebec, St. Rochs, Three Rivers, St. John’s, 
 St. Athanase, Joliette, Chambly, Cohoes, N.Y., Sorel, Bejthier 
 and L’Assomption. At a later period there were over one hun- 
 dred in the Province, of which about sixty obtained Acts of In- 
 corporation. The Montreal Institute was incorporated by Act 
 of Parliament in 1852, 16 Vic., chap. 261, under the presidency 
 of Mr. Joseph Doutre. Article 2 states that “ L’lnstitut Cana- 
 dien has for its object to extend and develop a taste for science, 
 art and literature.” The names of members forming the Insti- 
 tute, as incorporated, were: — Joseph Doutre, C. F. Papineau, 
 L. Ducharme, V. P. W. Dorion, A. Cresse, W. Prevost, A. Tel- 
 lier, S. Martin, A. A. Dorion, J. G. Barthe, P. Mathieu, J. A. 
 Hawley, R. Laflamme, Joseph Papin, J. Emery Coderre, J. W. 
 Hallimand, P. R. Lafrenaye, F. Cassidy, Louis Ricard, Eugene 
 L’Ecuyer and C. Loupret. 
 
 To show the ability of many of its members, and how closely 
 the history of the Institute is connected with that of the country, 
 it may be mentioned that at a meeting of the Institute in 1854, 
 addresses of congratulation were presented to fourteen of its 
 members upon their election to seats in Parliament. 
 
6 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 OPPOSITION OF THE CLERGY. 
 
 The various institutes throughout the country were receiving 
 a small annual grant from Parliament, and the public, except the 
 clergy, universally looked upon them with great favor. The first 
 movement of the clergy directed against the Institute was to raise 
 the question of nationality. They secured, by their influence, the 
 adoption of a rule by the St. Jean Baptiste Society that none but 
 French-Canadians, or those married to French-Canadian ladies, 
 could become members. In the case of the late Francis Cassidy, 
 who, though of Irish birth, was a member of both societies, this 
 rule was not observed ; but when it was desired to make Mr. 
 Cassidy President of the Institute, it was found necessary to alter 
 the constitution, so as to open the doors to all nationalities. This 
 aroused the anger of the clergy, who then more openly expressed 
 their opposition to the Institutes in Montreal and smaller towns. 
 As one means to compass their downfall they opened rival insti- 
 tutions entirely under clerical control, to which they gave the 
 name of Instituts Nationaux. Many of these societies never 
 had any real existence, except on paper, but under false pre- 
 tences they succeeded in obtaining grants from Parliament for 
 several years. By these means, and by the exercise of spiritual 
 terrors, they succeeded either in extinguishing all the societies 
 outside of Montreal, or in securing entire control over them and 
 altering their character. 
 
 L’Institut Canadien of Montreal held out nobly, and strug- 
 gled long and bravely against the persecutions of the clergy. Its 
 success had been such that in 1857 not less than seven hundred 
 members contributed to its maintenance, and it had long since 
 procured commodious premises for its meetings and library on 
 Notre Dame street, where it is now established. In 1858, the 
 clergy determined, if possible, to destroy the Institute. As rivals 
 
 to this they had already three institutions of their own, the 
 
 Sulpicians had formed the Cabinet de Lecture and Cercle 
 Litteraire, and the Jesuits, L’Union Catholique, where members 
 had access to libraries and reading-rooms gratuitously or at trifl- 
 ing cost, d hey attempted at first to induce the members of the 
 Institute to exclude from their number those who did not profess 
 the Catholic religion, and then to exclude from their reading- 
 room the Witness and the Semeur Canadien , two Protestant papers. 
 
l’institut canadien. 
 
 7 
 
 After protracted debates, which lasted several weeks, the victory 
 remained with those members who were desirous of maintaining 
 the integrity of their constitution in regard to the equality of 
 creeds and origins, and their liberty of reading all organs of pub- 
 lic opinion. 
 
 ATTACK UPON THE LIBRARY. 
 
 Then a system of calumny was organized in order to repre- 
 sent the library of the institution as containing several books of 
 an immoral character, and finally some leaders, in the interest of 
 the clergy, circulated through the city a written declaration con- 
 taining those calumnies' and soliciting signatures to a resignation 
 of the members in mass. The effect was the withdrawal from the 
 Institute of one hundred and fifty members at one time, and the 
 foundation of the Institut Canadien Francais, with the view of 
 taking away from the Institute those who had personal sympathies 
 with the one hundred and fifty retiring members, but had objec- 
 tions to putting themselves under the exclusive tutorship of the 
 clergy. This new institution, though apparently founded by 
 laymen, has been kept in existence by clerical subsidies and 
 countenance. 
 
 Since 1858, the French-Chnadian young men who had almost 
 all enrolled under the banner of the Institut Canadien, have been 
 divided among that institution and the three clerical societies 
 above named. The Institut Canadien could not but lose some 
 of its efficiency under the active and unceasing persecutions of 
 the clergy, and the rivalry of so many institutions supported by 
 rich corporations. 
 
 Efforts were made to show the clergy that the only ground 
 on which they avowedly persecuted the Institute, namely, the 
 pretended immorality of their books, was unfounded. A depu- 
 tation waited upon the Bishop of Montreal with a catalogue of 
 their books, offering to purge their library of any book that 
 should be indicated to them as immoral. His Lordship kept 
 this catalogue six months before him, and when the deputation 
 went back to have an answer, His Lordship returned it without 
 indicating a single work as being immoral. 
 
 Notwithstanding that the Bishop was unable to point out any 
 book as immoral, he maintained the pastoral prohibition and re- 
 
8 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 ligious penalties he had decreed against the members of the 
 Institute, which consisted in the refusal of sacraments, even in 
 articulo mortis , and a consequent refusal to buryany one dying a 
 member in a Catholic cemetery. It was this action of the 
 Bishop that gave rise to the now celebrated Guibord Case. 
 
 Many members of the clergy acknowledged the justice of the 
 cause of the remaining members of the Institute, but they were 
 obliged to submit to the dictates of their superiors, and they 
 continued to enforce the penalties imposed by the pastoral letter 
 of 1858. By the action of the clergy and the existence of the 
 three rival literary institutions above mentioned, the number of 
 members was reduced in 1867 to about three hundred, of whom 
 only one hundred and fifty were in a position to pay their annual 
 subscriptions. 
 
 On the 17th of December, 1866, the twenty-second anniver- 
 sary of its foundation, the Institute inaugurated its new and spa- 
 cious building at in Notre Dame street, where it now remains. 
 Previous to this date, the Institute had erected a magnificent 
 monument in the Roman Catholic cemetery to the memory of 
 those Canadians who lost their lives in the troubles of 1837-8. 
 
 When Prince Napoleon was in Montreal, in 1861, he visited 
 the Institute, and as a mark of his sympathy with their cause, he 
 presented the library with a large number of rare and beautiful 
 books, valued at $2,600. The Emperor Napoleon had already 
 given the Institute some very beautiful statues, valued at 
 $1,000. 
 
 In proportion as the Bishop became more severe in his treat- 
 ment of the members of the Institute and more intolerable in his 
 demands, the members, on the other hand, became bolder in 
 their resistance. Those who had seceded were feeble and timid 
 spirits who had not the courage to avow their convictions, while 
 those who were left behind retained with them the true man- 
 hood of the original society. They freely, yet always respect- 
 fully, canvassed the action of the Bishop and clergy, and ad- 
 vocated religious toleration and freedom of thought and speech. 
 At the celebration of the anniversary of the Institute in Decem- 
 ber, 1 868, Hon. L. A. Dessaulles delivered an address on toler- 
 ance, in which he advocated, with great force, that simple Chris- 
 tian charity which Christ taught in His sermon on the mount. 
 
l’INSTITUT CANADIAN. 
 
 9 
 
 This gave great offence to the Bishop, who had the “ Annuaire ” 
 for 1868, in which the address was published, condemned by the 
 Index at Rome. On that occasion also Horace Greeley addressed 
 the Institute, giving utterance to these words : — 
 
 “ For the true Liberal, in the century in which we live, there 
 is but one country, the world ; but one religion, love to God and 
 man ; and one patriotism, to benefit and elevate the human fam- 
 ily. We have for adversaries, tyranny, ignorance, superstition, 
 and everything which oppresses or degrades.” 
 
 On the same occasion Mr. A. Geoffrion, an eloquent young 
 lawyer,, and member of the Institute, gave an address, in which 
 he said : — 
 
 “ It is not to be forgotten that young men have always been 
 feared by whoever seeks to dominate either in the political or 
 religious world. It is the age of noble and disinterested aspira- 
 tions ; the age when no selfish interest imposes silence on the 
 conscience ; the age, finally, when man has not yet learned to 
 wear a yoke.” 
 
 Such sentiments as the above were published in the “ Annu- 
 aire ” under the sanction of the Institute, and served to render 
 the book an object of horror to the clergy. 
 
 Owing to the widening of Notre Dame Street, the Institute 
 had been obliged to demolish its first edifice, and rebuild at a 
 loss of some $4,000. From this and other causes the Institute 
 became financially embarrassed, and in 1867 a committee was 
 appointed to collect subscriptions, and an appeal made to all 
 who loved freedom of thought and speech to assist in keeping up 
 its usefulness. Nearly $8,000 was subscribed in response to this 
 appeal, about one-half coming from English Protestants. 
 
 In 1872 the constitution of the Institute was amended in sev- 
 eral respects. At present any active member may become a life 
 member who, not yet having paid the sum of $50 in contribu- 
 tions or otherwise, shall complete that sum in one or several pay- 
 ments; and any person who having paid $50 to the funds of the 
 Institute shall be accepted by the Governing Committee. The 
 reading-room and the library were thrown open gratuitously to 
 the public. At the present time, with the exception of the Young 
 Men’s Christian Association’s reading-room, in which- the range 
 of literature, however, is very limited, the reading-room of l’ln- 
 
IO 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 stitut Canadien is the only free one in the city of Montreal. The 
 number of journals taken in both languages is very large, and 
 comprises organs of all classes of current thought. It is estimat- 
 ed that at least one hundred different persons visit the reading- 
 room every day in summer, and in winter the number is much 
 larger. The library contains about 9,000 volumes, and is also 
 gratuitously open to the public. Thus this Institute, in freely 
 affording the means of instruction and knowledge of passing 
 events, is nobly fulfilling the primary end for which it was found- 
 ed. The present superintendent is Mr. A. Boisseau, who has 
 held that position for eight years, and has also been one of the 
 Vice-Presidents. 
 
 The Managing Committee have adopted the plan of allowing 
 any individual outside the Institute to borrow any 7 book for one 
 day or one month, at the rate of one cent per day, upon leaving 
 a deposit equal to the value of the book. The number of persons 
 who avail themselves of this privilege is rapidly increasing, and 
 in this way the library is proving of great public utility. 
 
 THE PRESENT MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 The present membership is one hundred and sixty- five, 
 and nearly one-half this number are English. The ene- 
 mies of the Institute will, no doubt, be rejoiced to learn 
 that the systematic persecution of it by the clergy, ever 
 since 1858, has reduced its number from seven hundred to 
 the present figure. It is, however, deeply gratifying to re- 
 member that when the English Protestants of Montreal saw a 
 handful of their French-Canadian fellow-citizens bravely strug- 
 gling against such tremendous odds for that intellectual freedom 
 which they prize so highly themselves, they nobly came to their 
 assistance, and helped to sustain the Institute in its darkest days. 
 So may it ever be in the future struggles French-Canadians may 
 have to sustain against aggressive and tyrannical Ultramontanism. 
 
 It is painful to have to mention the names of several eminent 
 members of the Institute who were not strong enough to resist 
 the storm of clerical denunciation which was directed against it. 
 Soon after Guibord’s death and the Bishop’s refusal to bury, him, 
 the Hon. A. A Dorion, the present Chief-Justice of Quebec, 
 finding that his connection with the Institute was embarrassing 
 
l’institut canadien. 
 
 XI 
 
 to his political course, sent in his resignation. The Hon. Mr. 
 Geoffrion soon after did likewise in order to smooth the road of 
 political advancement. Mr. R. Laflamme, M.P., while still a 
 member of the Institute, secured his election for Jacques Cartier, 
 in 1872. In the contest he boldly Avowed his connection with 
 the Institute, and defended it, while the most desperate efforts of 
 the clergy failed to defeat him. In 1874, however, on the eve of 
 the last general election, Mr. Laflamme resigned his position in 
 the Institute, and was consequently returned without opposition. 
 
 LIST OF OFFICERS. 
 
 Below will be found the names of the principal officers of the 
 Institute from its foundation to the present time, beginning with 
 the 'Presidents : — 1844-45, A. C. Nelson; 45-46, A. GerinLajoie; 
 46-47, Joseph Papin ; 47, James Huston ; 48, R. Laflamme ; 48-49, 
 Y. P.W. Dorion; 49-50, F. Cassidy ; 50-51, J. B. E. Dorion ; 51-52, 
 P. Blanchet; 52-53, Joseph Doutre; 53-54, J. Emery Coderre; 54-55. 
 P. R. Lafrenaye ; 55-56, Charles Daoust ; 56, D. E. Papineau ; 57, 
 F. Cassidy ; 58, EuclideRoy; 59, Louis Belanger; 60, Charles 
 Daoust; 61, Peter L. McDonell ; 62, L. A. Dessaulles ; 63, A. 
 Tellier; 64, C. F. Papineau and F. J. Durand; 65, L. A. Des- 
 saulles; 66, J. E. Coderre and L. A. Dessaulles; 67, Joseph 
 Doutre; 68, C. F. Papineau; 69-70, N. Aubin ; 71-72, Gonzalve 
 Doutre; 73-74, L. J. A. Papineau; 75, Joseph Doutre. 
 
 First Vice-Presidents in the order of their election : — P. R. 
 Lafrenaye, Joseph Papin, James Huston, P. Blanchet, L. De- 
 lorme, G. Ouimet (1847), L. Labreche-Viger, A. Mousseau, Au- 
 guste Papineau, L. Ricard, J. E. Coderre, P. Gendron, A. Tel- 
 lier, C. Quevillon, Joseph Guibord {1852), C. F. Papineau, 
 Joseph Durand, Michel Emery, L. Labr6che-Viger, A. Tellier, 
 Charles Marcil, Pierre Doutre, C. Archambault, J. DeMontigny, 
 Pierre Doutre, Ant. Comte, Edmond Dorion, Louis Rivet, C. F. 
 Papineau, Mederic Lanctot, N. Cyr, W. Laurier, Arthur Buies, 
 C. F. Pratt, A. Boisseau, E. G. Penny, A. Boisseau, Alex. 
 Dufresne, C. A. Geoffrion, O. Ste- Marie, J. O. Turgeon, H. 
 Prefontaine, Frederick Kay, Charles Alexander. 
 
 Recording Secretaries in the order of their election : A. 
 
 Gerin Lajoie, Magloire Lanctot, L. Labreche-Viger, R Laflamme, 
 P. Benoit, C. F. Lamontagne, Charles Laberge, V. P. W. Dorion, 
 
1 2 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 Joseph Papin, Noe Betournay, F. Cassidy, J. Durand, C. F. Papi- 
 neau, L. L. Morin (1850), W. Marchand, Hector Fabre, A. St. 
 Armand, J. Defoy, F. Chagnon, Chs. Marcil, Louis Joubert, D. 
 L. Gauthier, Achille Belle, M^deric Lanctot, L. E. Racicot, G. 
 Doutre, Philippe Vandal, A. Branchaud, C. E. Bouthillier, J. 
 Bouchard, J. Bte. Couillard, A. Lusignan, J. B. Doutre, N. Bien- 
 venu J. G. Papineau, J. N. Bienvenu, A. Boisseau, A. E. Forget. 
 Treasurers in the order of their election : — Ed. Fournier, C- 
 
 E. Belle, P Blanchet, V. P. W. Dorion, B. Giroux, A. L. La- 
 croix, Charles Bourdon, P. Blanchet, V. P. W. Dorion, P. Blan- 
 chet, A. Jodoin, Noe Betournay, A. Tellier (three years), R. 
 Trudeau (three years), P. B. Badeaux (two years), Leon Doutre 
 (two years), P. A. Fateux, Amable Jodoin, Gonzalve Doutre 
 (two years), L. E. Morin, P. Henry, Henry Lacroix (two years), 
 
 F. B. Lafleur (two years), A. Brunet, L. C. Crevier, Alfred 
 Brunet (two years), A. Boudreau. 
 
 Librarians : — L. Racine, J. B. E. Dorion, V. P. W. Dorion, 
 C. Basinet, J. Huston, J. B. Ledoux, Auguste Papineau, C. J. 
 H. Lacroix, Eric Labrosse, Louis Lemaire, T. G. Coursolles, 
 J. E. Tert6, J, E. Bibaud, D. E. Papineau, J. C. Racicot, N. E. 
 Chevalier, C. J. N. DeMontigny, J. C. Racicot, J. C. Paette, C. 
 Dion, C. S. Smith, F. A. Fissiault, Cyrille Bertrand, P. Blanchet. 
 J. DeMontigny, L. Neveux, C. O. Perrault, P. Blanchet, C. A 
 Geoffrion, N. Durand, Alp. Lusignan, N. Duval (two years), J. 
 Bouchard, A. Doutre (two years), F. O. Rinfret, P. B. Badeaux 
 (two years). 
 
II. 
 
 THE BISHOP AND THE INSTITUTE. 
 
 The person concerning whose , mortal remains the great con- 
 flict was to be waged between the authority of Pope Pius IX. and 
 that of Queen Victoria in Canada, was a printer, and worked 
 nearly all his life industriously at his trade, most of the time with 
 the late Louis Perrault. He bore an irreproachable character, 
 was quiet and unassuming, thoughtful and studious. He was 
 one of the early members of the Institute, and in 1852 was elect- 
 ed first Vice-President. His wife was Henrietta Brown, of Ca- 
 nadian birth, but of Irish parentage. Guibord was a sincere 
 Catholic, and faithful in the observance of his religious duties. 
 
 The ostensible origin of the difficulty between the Bishop and 
 the Institute was the pretence by the former that the library 
 contained immoral books. In 1858 certain members of the In- 
 stitute, acting under clerical advice, proposed a committee for 
 the purpose of making a list of books in the library which, in 
 their opinion, ought to be thrown out. An amendment was car- 
 ried, by a considerable majority, to the effect that the library 
 contained no improper books, and that the Institute was the sole 
 judge of the morality of its library. Shortly afterwards the 
 Bishop published a pastoral letter, in which he referred to the 
 action of the Institute, and, after praising the course of the min- 
 ority, pointed out that the majority had fallen into two great er- 
 rors ; first, in declaring that they were the proper judges of the 
 morality of their books, an office that belonged only to the 
 Bishop ; and, secondly, in declaring that the library contained 
 only moral books, although some of them were in the Index at 
 Rome. He cited a decision of the Council of Trent, that any 
 one who read or kept heretical books would incur sentence of 
 excommunication, and that any one who read or kept books for- 
 bidden on other grounds would be subject to severe punishment 
 and he concluded by making an appeal to the Institute to alter 
 
14 HISTORY OF the guibord case. 
 
 its resolution, otherwise no Catholic would continue to belong 
 to it. The issue thus raised between the Institute and the 
 Bishop continued for nearly seven years, until 1865, when several 
 members, including Guibord, 
 
 APPEALED TO ROME 
 
 against the conduct of the Bishop, claiming to be entitled to all 
 the rights of the Church. The authorities at Rome seemed, for 
 four years, to take no notice of the matter. In 1869 Mr. Gon- 
 zalve Doutre was commissioned by the Institute to proceed to 
 Rome to represent that institution in the appeal. Mr. Doutre 
 reached Rome on the 6th of September, and was put in commu- 
 nication with Cardinal Barnabo, who was Prefect of the Propa- 
 ganda. Mr. Doutre had an interview with the Pope, and several 
 consultations with Mgr. Nina, who represented the Holy Office. 
 In obedience to the request of this prelate, Mr. Doutfe sub- 
 mitted a memorandum of the manner in which the Institute would 
 like the difficulty to be settled. Mr. Doutre’s representations 
 were not listened to, and the conduct of the Holy Office con- 
 vinced him that they were quite willing to condemn the Insti- 
 tute, and fully decided not to condemn the Bishop. In the same 
 year the Bishop also went to Rome to attend the Vatican Coun- 
 cil. Without communicating with the members who appealed, he 
 sent a pastoral letter to Canada, setting forth that the Pope had 
 rejected the appeal and condemned the Institute. The pastoral 
 letter contained the Decretum, in which it was pointed out that 
 two things were especially forbidden: — 1. To belong to the 
 Institute while it taught pernicious doctrines. 2. To publish, 
 retain, keep or read the “ Annuaire” of 1868; and he added that 
 any person who persisted in remaining a member of the Insti- 
 tute or in reading the “ Annuaire ” would be deprived of the 
 sacrament, “ meme a 1 ' article de la mort." The Institute held a 
 meeting on the 23rd of September, 1869, and resolved : — 
 
 1. “That the Institut Canadien, the object of whose founda- 
 tion is purely literary and scientific, teaches no doctrine of any 
 kind, and carefully excludes all teaching of pernicious doctrine. 
 
 2. “That the Catholic members of the Institut Canadien 
 having learned of the condemnation of the ‘ Annuaire ’ of 1868 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IN MEMORY OF JOSEPH GUIBORD. 
 Chap. I. — LTNSTITUT CANADIEN. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Its Founders — Opposition of the Clergy — Attack upon 
 the Library — Present Standing 
 
 Chap. II.— THE BISHOP AND THE INSTITUTE. 
 
 Origin of the Difficulty— Appeal to Rome — The Widow. 
 Invokes the Law — Appeal to the Privy Council 13 
 
 Chap. III.— GUIBORD’S FIRST FUNERAL. 
 
 The Refusal of Burial — The Tender of a Plot in the 
 Criminals’ Reserve 18 
 
 Chap. IV.— EARLY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Testimony of Rev. Cure Rousselot, Hon. Mr. Dessaulles 
 and Dr. Coderre — Suit to obtain* Burial 20 
 
 Chap. V.— RECUSATION OF THE JUDGES. 
 
 Mr. Doutre declares the inability of Roman Catholic 
 Judges to act impartially in cases where the Civil and 
 
 Religious authorities conflict — Petition disallowed 24 
 
 Chap. VI.— JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL 29 
 
 Chap. VII.— DECREE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL 56 
 
 Chap. VIII.— THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL ON 2ND SEPTEMBER. 
 
 At the Catholic Cemetery— The Mob — Responsibility of 
 the Church Authorities for the Riot — Action of the Po- 
 lice Authorities — Opinions of the Press — Letter from 
 Rev. Cure Rousselot — Guarding the Protestant Ceme- 
 tery — Legal Proceedings 62 
 
 Chap. IX.— PASTORAL LETTER OF THE BISHOP OF MONT- 
 
 REAL. 
 
 The “ calm and moderate conduct of the Mob ” com- 
 mended — Guibord’s Grave to be Cursed — The Curse 
 Lateral or the Curse Perpendicular— Arguments in favor 
 of the Curse Lateral — Quebec Bishops’ Pastoral — An- 
 other Pastoral from Mgr. Bourget 
 
 67 
 
11 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Chap. X.— CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ARCHBISHOP 
 
 LYNCH AND MR. DOUTRE. 
 
 The Bishop’s two Letters and Mr. Doutre’s reply 85 
 
 Chap. XI.— INTERVIEW BETWEEN MAYOR KINGSTON 
 
 AND MR. DOUTRE. 
 
 Reasons for Anticipating Trouble at the Burial — Hair 
 Splitting 96 
 
 Chap. XII.— WHAT THEY THINK IN ENGLAND 102 
 
 Chap. XIII.— THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 The Feeling in the City — The Sarcophagus — Cure 
 Rousselot’s Letter — Gathering the Forces — At the Pro- 
 testant Cemetery — On the Way — At the Catholic Cem- 
 etery — Closing the Gates — Buried at Last — What Mgr. 
 Bourget’s organ says — A Wall to be put round the Grave 105 
 
 Chap. XIV. — PASTORAL AFTER THE BURIAL. 
 
 Guibord’s Grave declared Accursed 120 
 
 Chap. XV.— JOSEPH DOUTRE, Q. C 128 
 
 Chap. XVI.— THE LATE JOSEPH GUIBORD 133 
 
 Chap. XVII.— BISHOP BOURGET 136 
 
 Chap. XVIII.— REV. CUR& ROUSSELOT 140 
 
 Chap. XIX .—MAYOR HINGSTON 142 
 
 Chap. XX.— HON. JUDGE MONDELET 144 
 
 Chap. XXI.— CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MAYOR, 
 BISHOP BOURGET AND PRIESTS. 
 
 The Bishop’s Letters to the Mayor, and to his Priests — 
 Letters of Revs. J. M. Marecal, Joseph Graton, L. M. 
 Taillon, Cure Rousselot, P. Dowd, J. Hogan, J. A. 
 Tartel, Thomas Fleck, J. Lonergan and J. R. Maynard 
 to the Mayor — Other Documents 145 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In writing, or rather compiling, this History of the Guibord 
 Case, it has been thought advisable to give as much prominence 
 as possible to the official records of the occurrences herein 
 recorded, that they might be set forth not only without prejudice, 
 but without any suspicion of unfairness. The case has, for many 
 years, been a cause celebre ; its principal events have been stated 
 over and over again by nearly every journal in Christendom, and 
 it has been thought better to present to the public the facts in a 
 manner which could not be disputed, and with little, if any 
 comment. 
 
 There are two or three points which, however, might be 
 introduced into this preface which would hardly be appropriate 
 in the body of the book. In the first place, although the late 
 Joseph Guibord died on November 19th, 1869, there has since 
 been no refusal to bury members of the Institute, and at least 
 eleven have died while holding their membership. Their remains 
 received the last privileges of the Roman Catholic Church and were 
 buried in consecraled ground. The eleven referred to were as 
 follows : — 
 
 Arsene Charlebois, died August nth, 1870. He paid his 
 dues to the Institute to the date of his death, and was not only a 
 member of it, but also a Freemason. He was buried under his 
 pew in the Church of St. Anne. It was reported to the Cur6 of 
 that parish that he was both a Freemason and a member of the 
 Institut Canadien. The Cur6 telegraphed this to the Bishop of 
 Montreal and asked for instructions. The Bishop obtained 
 affidavits from certain convenient persons that they knew the 
 deceased intimately, but they were not aware that he was either a 
 Freemason or a member of the Institut Canadien, and on the 
 strength of these affidavits His Lordship telegraphed back that 
 his remains be buried with ecclesiastical rites. 
 
 Achille David, died November 18th, 1874. 
 
iv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Theophile Fahrland, died in Chicago, November 25th, 1870. 
 
 Charles H. Lamontagne, died March 23rd, 1875. 
 
 Ludger Labelle, died March 1st, 1872. 
 
 N. F. A. Langelier, a member of the Institute, who died by 
 his own hand, and was nevertheless buried in consecrated ground. 
 
 Simon Martin, an old Superintendent of the Institute, died in 
 1871. 
 
 J. E. Melancon, died December 4th, 1872. 
 
 Alfred Picault, also a Freemason, died in the West Indies, 
 December 24th, 1872. 
 
 Dr. F. L. Tavenier, died in St. Louis, and his remains were 
 brought all the way to Montreal for interment in the consecrated 
 ground, and he was buried with great eclat after a grand mass 
 had been said over the corpse in the Parish Church. That the 
 Bishop might know that he was really a member of their body, 
 the Institute passed a vote of condolence on his death. This was 
 published in the French and English papers, but still his remains 
 were buried with ecclesiastical rites. 
 
 Antoine Jellier, died July 6th, 1873. He was once President 
 of the Institute, and because of his standing in the society, and his 
 having paid more- fees than would have entitled him to a life 
 membership, he was made a life member. 
 
 All these, who persisted in their “ sin ” after having the 
 example of Guibord set before their eyes, were buried with all the 
 honors and privileges the Church could give. It might be said 
 that some of them had not paid their dues to the date of their 
 death, but Guibord himself was two years behindhand; also 
 the Church had the same or better means of knowing they had 
 been members than they had with regard to Guibord, and in 
 one case the matter was officially brought before the Bishop. 
 
 Not only are the members of the Institute now buried without 
 trouble, but married also, as in the case of Mr. Gonzalve Doutre> 
 a member of the legal firm which has for six years represented 
 the Institute in the Guibord case, and many others, some being 
 equally remarkable. 
 
 Again, it is worthy of note that although it has been frequently 
 charged against the ecclesiastical authorities that at the attempted 
 burial on 2nd September employees of the Parish and other 
 churches were given a holiday and formed a portion of the body 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 V 
 
 of “ our very dear brethren ” who stoned the hearse containing 
 Guibord’s remains, this has never been denied and can be 
 proven if denied. From the fact that in his first pastoral 
 after the attempted burial His Lordship commends his faithful 
 people for their actions on the occasion, and that in his last 
 pastoral he points to the fact that there was no disturbance at the 
 final burial as an incontestable proof of his power over his people, 
 it must be inferred that in both cases they performed his will, and 
 that will is one which puts his allegiance to the Queen and her 
 laws in a very unsatisfactory light. 
 
 One of the most remarkable incidents of the Guibord case, 
 and one which has received little if any attention, was the evi- 
 dence given by the Hon. L. A. Dessaulles in the trial before Judge 
 Moncjelet. In his cross-examination he is asked if a charge con- 
 tained in one of his essays in the Annuaire was not an insult to 
 the Pope, and if he was not antagonistic to Papal authority. To 
 this Mr. Dessaulles replied, in one of the most remarkable answers 
 ever given before a judge. He entered fully into the tyrannical 
 deeds of the Emperor of Austria and the Czar of Russia, which, at 
 the time referred to, were ringing in the ears of the civilized world ; 
 and proved that the tyranny of the “ King” of Rome was worse than 
 that of even these potentates ; applied to him the term executioner 
 ( bourreau ), and proceeded to prove step by step from history 
 every accusation he had made. After conclusively proving by 
 an overwhelming array of incontrovertible facts the truth of one 
 series of his accusations, he so concludes : “ The expression or 
 statement of a fact is not an insult, if true; I have not therefore 
 insulted the Pope in relating an historical truth.” This was 
 probably the only case of history being written under oath, and 
 it is remarkable that it has not received more attention. 
 
 The publishers issue this book in the hope that it will prove 
 a valuable addition to the controversy now going on in regard to 
 the conflict between the civil and ecclesiastical claims. 
 
IN MEMORY OF JOSEPH GUIBORD. 
 
 The storm of six long years is past, 
 
 And peacefully he rests at last — 
 
 Thrice hearsed, thrice cursed, let honest Fame 
 Blow treble honor to his name ; 
 
 If thrice six years of praise ensue 
 ’Tis but the hero’s earthly due. 
 
 The humble printer’s mighty art, 
 
 Though banned, will vindicate her son, 
 
 And tell to every truthful heart — 
 
 While woods are green and waters run — 
 That he who braves a despot’s frown 
 Will wear at length the victor’s crown ; 
 
 Even when slain, and torn asunder, 
 
 And scattered piecemeal, trodden under 
 The brutal feet of frenzied foes, 
 
 His deeds will rise, as Christ arose, 
 
 And borne upon the chainless air 
 Will plead for freedom everywhere. 
 
 Let curses from their rookery fly, 
 
 And flap their foul wings o’er his bones, 
 The autumn wind that round him moans, 
 Will mock them, while in vain they try 
 To penetrate those friendly stones. 
 
 Come what might come, from man or elf, 
 
 He dared not quarrel with himself, 
 
 Nor stab the Truth that in his breast 
 Had found a warm and welcome nest. 
 
 No terrors of the burning lake, 
 
 Fancied or real, beyond the grave, 
 
 Nor purgatorial flames could shake 
 His manly soul, so firm and brave, 
 
 For he was neither fool nor slave. 
 
in Memory of josepH guibord. vii 
 
 True to himself,- he lived and died, 
 
 Not wilful, nor elate with pride, 
 
 But steadfast in his honest thought, 
 
 Self-justified, self-ruled, self-taught. 
 
 Our Brother ! wheresoever now 
 Thy spirit lifts its freeborn brow. 
 
 Behold thy kindred ! — not alone 
 In Canada will thousands own 
 
 Relationship ; throughout all lands, — 
 
 Wherever freedom shines or dawns, 
 
 An army with uplifted hands 
 Impelled by glowing links that bind 
 Nobility of mind to mind, 
 
 Will crown thee with their benisons. 
 
 Thus, Guibord ! shall the commonwealth 
 Of truth and reason's fearless sons, — 
 
 Scorners of m'en who think by stealth, 
 
 Now hold thee in fraternal trust. 
 
 And consecrate thine injured dust, 
 
 While woods grow green and water runs. 
 
 G. Martin. 
 
THE BISHOP AND THE INSTITUTE. 1 5 
 
 Of the Institut Canadien, declare that they submit purely and 
 simply to this decree.” 
 
 These concessions produced no effect. The Bishop, in a 
 letter from Rome to the administrator of the diocese at Mont- 
 real (which that officer received, he says, on the 17th November, 
 the day before Guibord’s death), denounces these concessions as 
 hypocritical for the following among other reasons : — 
 
 “ Because this act of submission forms part of a report of the 
 Committee, unanimously approved by the Institute, in which a 
 resolution is proclaimed, until then kept secret, which establishes 
 the principle of religious toleration, which has been the principle 
 ground of the condemnation of the Institute.” 
 
 This “ principal ground of condemnation ” of the Insti- 
 tute, viz., that it had passed a resolution which established 
 the principle of religious toleration, was entirely new, and, it 
 would seem, could not ’ have been known to Guibord. It 
 should also be mentioned, in order to complete the history 
 of the case, that Guibord, about six years before his death, 
 being dangerously ill, was attended by a priest, who ad- 
 ministered unction to him, but refused' to administer the 
 holy communion unless he resigned his membership of the In- 
 stitute, which Guibord declined to do. Guibord having died on 
 the 18th of November, 1869, of a sudden attack of paralysis, on 
 the 20th the widow caused a request to be made to the Cure and 
 to the clerk of the Fabrique, to bury Guibord in the cemetery, 
 and tendered the usual fees. Previously to this application, M. 
 Rousselot, the Cur6, having heard of the death of Guibord, and 
 knowing that he was a member of the Institute, had applied to 
 the administrator of the diocese for his directions. The latter 
 replied that he had yesterday received a letter from the Bishop 
 directing him to refuse absolution, “ meme a Particle de la mort" 
 to members of the Institute ; he could not, therefore, permit “ la 
 sepulture ecclesiastique ” to Guibord. The Cur<£ then refused to 
 bury Guibord in the consecrated part of the cemetery where 
 Roman Catholics were ordinarily buried, but offered to inter him 
 in the portion allotted to crimnals without religious rites. It 
 seems that the agent of the widow offered to accept burial in the 
 larger part, without religious rites, but this was refused. The 
 remains of Guibord were, therefore, temporarily deposited in 
 the vault of the Protestant cemetery. 
 
1 6 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBOJID CASE. 
 
 THE WIDOW INVOKES THE LAW. 
 
 This refusal of the Church authorities to allow Guibord Chris- 
 tian burial aroused the liveliest sympathy of the members of the 
 Institute for the widow. Messrs. Joseph Doutre and R. La- 
 flamme espoused her cause, and upon her behalf proceedings 
 were instituted in the Superior Court to compel the Church au- 
 thorities to bury the body in the consecrated portion of the cem- 
 etery. A writ of mandamus was applied for to this effect. Sev- 
 enteen days were occupied in arguments, which were heard be- 
 fore Mr. Justice Mondelet. It was' contended on the part of the 
 Fabrique that by the terms of the cession of Canada to Great 
 Britain the worship of the Roman Catholic religion was to re- 
 main free from all interference from the civil authorities. On 
 the other hand it was contended that the right to an ecclesiasti- 
 cal burial was a civil right which the Church could not deny. 
 
 Judge Mondelet, in an elaborate opinion, sustained the cause 
 of the applicant, and quoted the opinion of Sir George Cartier 
 to show that the Cure of the parish of Notre Dame could be con- 
 strained by judgment of the courts to solemnize baptisms, mar- 
 riages and burials in which his parishioners were concerned. The 
 Judge ordered a peremptory writ of mandamus to issue, com- 
 manding the Cur6 and Fabrique to bury the deceased within six 
 days. From this decision the Church authority appealed to the 
 Court of Review, consisting of Judges Berthelot, Mackay and 
 Torrance, who reversed the decision of Judge Mondelet, and dis- 
 missed the application upon the technical ground that the action 
 should have been brought against the Cur6 personally, and be- 
 cause the writ was informal. An appeal to the Court of Queen’s 
 Bench, appeal side, was then taken by the widow. At the open- 
 ing of the December term of this Court, Mr. Doutre challenged 
 the four Roman Catholic judges, on the ground that, if 
 faithful adherents of their Church, by its teachings in 
 the Syllabus and otherwise, they could not do justice in 
 any case where there is a conflict between the civil 
 and ecclesiastical laws such as the one under consideration. 
 When the last day of the term arrived, the five judges 
 (the Protestant judge being Mr. ex-Justice Badgley) declared 
 the petitions inadmissible, inasmuch as the charges contained in 
 
THE BISHOP AND THE INSTITUTE. 1 7 
 
 them amounted- to accusations against the judges of treason and 
 perjury, whereupon Mr. Doutre moved for an 
 
 APPEAL TO HER MAJESTY'S PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 The appeal to England involved a heavy expense. 
 The Insiitut Canadien contributed $1,000 for that pur- 
 pose, and various private citizens of Montreal, Catholic 
 and Protestant, generously contributed the means to prosecute 
 the case before the Privy Council. In the meantime Guibord’s 
 widow was distracted at what she regarded as a dishonor to her 
 husband’s memory, and by her vain attempts to secure his re- 
 mains Christian burial. She was, moreover, surrounded by peo- 
 ple who tried to persuade her that if she had recourse A law 
 against the clergy, there would be no salvation for her. Finally 
 the unhappy woman’s reason almost gave way, and soon after 
 she died, March 24th, 1873. By her will she devised her prop- 
 erty to the Institut Canadien, and also appointed that body as 
 her universal legatee. Leave was granted by their Lordships of 
 the Privy Council to the Institut Canadien to continue the case 
 in her behalf. The case came formally before the Judicial Com- 
 mittee of the Privy Council on the 27th of June, 1874. Mr. 
 Doutre had proceeded to England to represent the Institute, and 
 with him was associated H. M. Bompas, Esq., as counsel, Messrs. 
 Few & Co. acting as solicitors. The counsel for the Fabrique 
 were Mr. L. A. Jette, of Montreal, and Messrs. Westlake, Q. C., 
 and Matthews, of London, Messrs. Morris, Ashurst & Co. being 
 their solicitors. / Mr. Doutre, however, is the only member of 
 the Canadian Bar who participated in the argument in London. 
 
III. 
 
 GUIBORD S FIRST FUNERAL. 
 
 o 
 
 The first scene in this historical drama opens with the funeral 
 of Joseph Guibord, who died suddenly of paralysis on Thursday 
 evening, November i§th, 1869. An inquest was held on the 
 body, and the usual certificate sent by the Coroner to Mr. Rous- 
 selot, purate in charge of the Parish. The following morning 
 the friends of the deceased went to the Seminary to have the 
 death registered, to arrange for the usual service for the dead, 
 and to obtain an order for interment in the Roman Catholic 
 Cemetery. The officer in charge refused to register the death 
 or to give any order for interment. The usual service was also 
 refused. The reason for this, distinctly and unequivocally given, 
 was that the deceased was a member of the Canadian Institute, 
 it being further stated that orders had been issued that no mem- 
 ber of that institution was to receive any of the rites of the 
 Church. As Mr. Guibord had been a consistent adherent of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, had fulfilled all the duties required of 
 its members, during the whole of Lent and on Fridays abstain- 
 ing from meat as ordered, was a pew-holder in St. Peter’s Church, 
 and a member of two societies under the control of the priests f 
 and to which only Roman Catholics were admitted as members, 
 the friends thought there must be some misconception. One 
 of his relatives, therefore, went to the Seminary and asked for 
 an order to have deceased buried in a lot belonging to the appli- 
 cant, but he was told this would not be given. To put an end 
 to all doubt on the subject, the widow gave a written order to 
 three gentlemen to act for her, who were to use every means to 
 obtain permission to have the body interred in consecrated 
 ground. Armed with this, they called on the Rev. Mr. Rous- 
 selot, and formally asked him to give the order. This was again 
 refused. They then demanded of him in his capacity as a public 
 officer, to give Joseph Guibord interment, who was born a Catho- 
 lic, baptized and married in the Roman Catholic Church, and 
 
guibord's first funeral. 
 
 19 
 
 had always been a Catholic up to the hour of his death. The 
 only answer to this was that he had received orders from the 
 Vicar-General to that effect ; and he produced the letter, whjjch 
 stated that “ no member of the Canadian Institute was to have 
 the sacraments of the Church administered, to receive the last 
 rites, to have funeral services performed, or to obtain interment 
 in the Catholic cemetery.” The friends then made a legal ten- 
 der of the fees usual in such cases, which Mr. Rousselot offered 
 to accept, but said that the body could not be interred in the 
 lot. A request was then made that the body should be allowed 
 to be deposited in the vaults, but no answer could be returned 
 till the matter had been referred to the Grand Vicar. On the 
 return of the friends for an answer, the cur 6 was present with 
 a witness, and said they must understand that interment was not 
 refused, but that the body of Guibord must be buried in a lot 
 set apart for the burial of unbaptized children, suicides and 
 people unrecognized by the Church. This was declined by the 
 friends, and a notarial protest was served on the Fabrique. 
 
 On Sunday, Nov. 21st, about two hundred and fifty friends 
 and sympathizers of deceased met at his late residence in St. 
 Urbain street, to accompany the body to the Catholic cemetery. 
 The hearse was one used by Protestants, and at the gate the cof- 
 fin was taken out and conveyed on a sleigh to the chapel. The 
 representative of the Fabrique was then required to inter the 
 body, and a legal tender was made to him of the fees ; but he 
 declined to receive them, acting, he said, under instructions from 
 the Fabrique. He would, however, bury the body, if they chose, 
 in the strangers' lot, an unconsecrated piece of ground, rough 
 and neglected, and where, as the superintendent informed them, 
 suicides, &c., were buried. In reply to further enquiries, he said 
 criminals, executed without having made their confession, were 
 interred there, but that Beauregard and Barreau, murderers of 
 the foulest sort, were laid in consecrated ground, as before death 
 they had made their peace with the Church. Seeing that further 
 attempts would be useless, the body was again placed in the 
 hearse, and now taken to the English cemetery, and there placed 
 temporarily in a vault. Before being placed there, short addresses 
 were delivered by Messrs. Joseph Doutre, Q. C., V. P. W. Dorion, 
 C. Ovide Perrault, and J. A. Perkins. 
 
IV. 
 
 EARLY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF REV. MR. ROUSSELOT AND HON. MR. DESSAULLES 
 
 Madame Guibord, acting under advice of several prominent 
 members of the Institute, brought a suit before the Superior 
 Court to compel the Fabrique to accord burial to Guibord’s re- 
 mains in his own lot in consecrated ground. Messrs. Joseph 
 Doutre, Q. C., and R. Laflamme, both members of the Institute, 
 were counsel for Madame Guibord, while Messrs. L. A. Jettd, 
 J. L. Cassidy, and F. X. Trudel represented the Fabrique. 
 
 On January 18th, 1870, Rev. Mr. Rousselot gave evidence in 
 defence as follows : 
 
 Civil burial is never given except in the reserved part of the 
 cemetery. -No notice was given me that the body of Guibord 
 would be brought to the cemetery on Sunday, 21st November 
 last, in the afternoon, nor was any demand made on me to hold 
 myself in attendance there that afternoon. 
 
 On January 19th, Hon. L. A. Dessaulles, for plaintiff, testified : 
 I have been since 1853 or ’54, and am still, a member of the 
 Canadian Institute. My acquaintance with the history of the 
 difficulties between that body and Bishop Bourget dates only 
 from January, 1863. In that month a pastoral of His Lordship 
 was read in the Roman Catholic churches, condemning a lecture 
 delivered by me before the Institute the previous month. In 
 this pastoral occurs the following passage : — 
 
 “We will then pray that no evil may result to any one from 
 that dreadful monster Rationalism, which has anew lifted up its 
 hideous head in the Institute, and which seeks to spread the in- 
 fectious poison in a pamphlet repeating the blasphemies uttered 
 from that seat of pestilence.” 
 
EARLY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 2] 
 
 The pamphlet herein referred to was the one which contained 
 my lecture. With a view as well of justifying the Institute as of 
 repelling so grave an attack against myself, I wrote in February 
 following a respectful letter to the Bishop, asking His Lordship 
 to indicate the blasphemous utterances in my pamphlet, that I 
 might retract them. A second and a third letter remained, like 
 the first, without an answer. Having obtained an interview with 
 Mgr. Bourget, he refused, in terms wounding to my feelings, to 
 comply with my request. 
 
 Wearied at last with being ever in bitter contest with the 
 ecclesiastical authority, a committee was named by the Institute 
 in 1863, of which I was a member, for the promotion of a better 
 understanding between the Bishop and the Society. We waited 
 on His Lordship, who received us cordially. The result of our 
 interview was that, with His Lordship’s permission, J. C. F. 
 Papineau, Esq., and myself laid before him the catalogue of the 
 library, that the books said to be dangerous might be designated 
 thereon. The Bishop recognized, he said, in this step a proof 
 of good intentions, and intimated to us that he would examine 
 the catalogue and send us his answer when ready. 
 
 Seven months had passed and the answer had not come. 
 Seeing the Bishop on the eve of departing for Europe, I repaired 
 to the Palace on the evening of the 4th November, 1864, and 
 learned from the Bishop that “ he had not deemed it his duty to 
 point out the said works,” as, he said, it would “have led to no 
 practical result.’’ I asked how members were to act who sin- 
 cerely wished to know what books the Church forbade them to 
 read, and was told that such persons could address themselves 
 to their confessors. I observed that if such was the remedy, the 
 way to an arrangement was clear, for having offered to place the 
 forbidden books in a separate department, that would be a suffi- 
 cient indication to those who would not wish to read them with- 
 out spiritual advice. I also observed that the bishops of France 
 and Other countries tolerated in their respective provinces li- 
 braries containing many more such books than did our library, 
 and in .respect of the possession of which their owners were 
 never troubled on their dying bed. His Lordship said that he 
 was not free to ignore the injunctions of the Church, and on my 
 remarking that these laws were everywhere interpreted with 
 
22 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 more liberality than by His Lordship, the latter replied that he 
 had his duty to perform and he would perform it. I said those 
 bishops drew distinctions between the classes of books placed in 
 the Index, and said that as to works of an obscene nature, we 
 did not pretend to the right of possessing them. I cited works 
 of political economists, which we had at the Institute, and which 
 were on the Index, and asserted that the study of them was ab- 
 solutely necessary to one in political life. In like manner, I 
 continued, there are historical works in the Index, without refe- 
 rence to which a professor of history could not properly teach 
 that branch. His Lordship finally said: “I. prohibit all the 
 
 Church prohibits. Does the Church forbid a thing ? That is 
 all I look to. Does she condemn the economists? We must do 
 without them. I administer my diocese as I understand it.” 
 He then returned me the catalogue without having specified the 
 objectionable books. 
 
 The best theologians in Montreal were then consulted with 
 as to the course we should take. They also took counsel of a 
 foreign priest of high distinction, who chanced to be in the city 
 at the time. They united in saying that an appeal to the Holy 
 See became necessary under the circumstances. Agreeably to 
 their advice, a humble petition was addressed to His Holiness 
 Pius IX., and signed by seventeen Catholic members of the In- 
 stitute, among whom was Guibord. 
 
 No decision has ever been rendered on this appeal. When 
 the Bishop’s pastoral, enclosing the two decrees therein men- 
 tioned, was read in this city, the members of the Institute who 
 had appealed to the Holy See took in at a glance the change of 
 tactics adopted by the Bishop. Eminent theologians were again 
 consulted, and again following their instructions, we decided to 
 accept, purely and simply, the decree of the “ Congregation of 
 the Index,” condemning the Annuary of 1868. But as the other 
 decree, that of the “Roman Inquisition,” was erroneous in point of 
 fact, inasmuch as it affirmed the actual “ teaching by the Institute 
 as a body of the opinions expressed in the Annuary,” we con- 
 cluded that this could be owing only to the fact that our adver- 
 saries had alone been heard before that tribunal. The latter 
 never afforded the Institute an opportunity of contradicting the 
 accusation, and we consequently felt ourselves constrained to 
 
EARLY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 23 
 
 withhold that submission to the decree of the “ Inquisition ” 
 which we yielded to that of the Congregation of the Index. A 
 memoir embodying our reasons for not submitting to the said 
 decree was drawn up by some Catholic members for transmission 
 to Cardinal Barnabo, Prefect of the Propaganda at Rome. 
 
 DR. CODERRE’S EVIDENCE. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Emery Coderre was examined as to the history of 
 the difficulty which resulted in the refusal of burial to Guibord, 
 and stated that it began with a proposition to exclude the Semeur 
 Canadien and Witness from the Canadian Institute ; and another, 
 that all religious papers should be excluded, both of which pro- 
 positions were rejected. 
 
 When the two decrees of Rome were published last year in 
 the churches concerning the Canadian Institute, a committee was 
 appointed to consider and suggest what could be done to satisfy 
 these decrees, the members of which consulted with influential 
 clergymen and upon their suggestions that committee adopted 
 the following resolutions : — 
 
 1st. That the Institut Canadien, founded exclusively for 
 literary and scientific purposes, has no kind of doctrinal teaching, 
 and carefully excludes all teaching of pernicious doctrines. 
 
 2nd. That the Catholic members of the Institut Canadien, 
 having learned the condemnation of the year book of the Institu- 
 tion for 1868, by decree of Roman authority, submit purely and 
 simply to that decree. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mondelet, before whom the application for burial 
 was made, and the above evidence adduced, decided in favor of 
 the widow, ordering the burial to take place in Guibord’s lot. 
 The Fabrique appealed to the Court of Review, who reversed the 
 decision of Judge Mondelet. The widow then appealed to the 
 Court of Queen’s Bench (appeal side), in the opening of the 
 December term in 1870. 
 
y. 
 
 RECUSATION OF THE JUDGES. 
 
 This Court was composed of five judges, viz : Duval, Caron, 
 Monk and Drummond, Roman Catholic ; and Badgley, Protestant 
 At the openiftg of the Court, on December 2nd, Mr. J oseph Doutre, 
 Q. C., counsel for the plaintiff, challenged the four Roman Catholic 
 judges on the ground that they belonged to a Church which had, 
 by the Syllabus of 1864, declared that the State possessed no 
 authority, even indirectly, over matters of religion, and that in 
 case of conflict between the civil and ecclesiastical authority, the 
 former must yield. 
 
 “ By means of a strong pressure on public opinion in this 
 Province,” said Mr. Doutre, “ many persons are not sure whether 
 our judges are the representatives of Her Majesty and the laws 
 made under her authority and that of her predecessors, or 
 whether, in certain matters, they are governed by a religious 
 authority, the seat of which is at Rome.” Here the Hon. Chief- 
 Justice interrupted Mr. Doutre to tell him that he attributed too 
 much importance to the imbeciles who expressed such doubts in 
 the matter. 
 
 “ Unfortunately,” rejoined Mr. Doutre, “ we meet those imbe- 
 ciles at every turn, and as the judges themselves have not defined 
 their position, we are brought to this point, that their decisions 
 will often rest without moral authority. The judges cannot ex- 
 press their opinion except upon a case before them, and this 
 case offers an occasion, the like of which may not occur again, 
 to put an end to the injurious doubts which are entertained as to 
 their independence, and as to their true position with regard to 
 the sovereign who appoints them, and another sovereign who 
 pretends to command their conscience, to circumscribe their 
 authority and to cast defiance at that of our Queen, our parlia- 
 
RECUSATION OF THE JUDGES. 
 
 25 
 
 ments and our laws. I have not the slightest doubt,” said Mr. 
 Doutre, “ that the declarations which your Honors will make, 
 in obedience to the law, will enable me to withdraw my chal- 
 lenge, which I will be very happy to do.” 
 
 The petition in recusation set forth the following causes, 
 among others : — “ Because the said Honorable Judge is a Roman 
 Catholic, owing an allegiance to an authority sitting at Rome, 
 Italy ; and that this Roman authority imposes as a dogma upon 
 its members the duty of maintaining the supremacy of the 
 said authority over that of all sovereigns, including Her 
 Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and of this 
 country. 
 
 Because the authority to which the Honorable Judge beaks 
 allegiance, directs him in conscience and under pain of anathema 
 and excommunication, to ignore the following dispositions of 
 Chap. 84, 14 George III., (1774), thus reported in the Consoli- 
 dated Statutes of Canada: — “And for the greater surety and 
 peace of mind of the inhabitants in the said province, (Quebec), 
 it is by these presents declared that the subjects of His Majesty 
 professing the religion of the Church of Rome (namely, the 
 Roman authority above mentioned), in the said Province of 
 Quebec, may preserve and enjoy the free exercise of the religion 
 of the Church of Rome, subject to the supremacy of the King." 
 And the decrees, orders and injunctions emanating from said 
 Roman authority, promulgated since the cession of Canada to 
 Great Britain, and the aforesaid statute, declare that the follow- 
 ing propositions cannot be admitted : — 
 
 1 . That it belongs to the civil power to define the rights of the 
 Church and the limits within which they may be exercised. (Art 
 19 of the Syllabus promulgated by the encyclical of December 8, 
 1864). 
 
 2. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority 
 without the assent and permission of the civil government 
 (Art. 20.) 
 
 3. In case of conflict between the two powers the civil power 
 shall prevail. (.Art. 42). 
 
 4. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to 
 religion, morals and spiritual discipline. (Art. 44). 
 
 5. In the present age it is no longer fitting that the Catholic 
 
26 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 religion should be considered as the sole religion of the State, to 
 the exclusion of all other religions. (Art. 47). 
 
 “6. The Church has no right to employ force, and has no tem- 
 poral power, direct or indirect. (Art. 24). 
 
 “Because the said Roman authority, which anathematises 
 and excommunicates those who believe or practice any of the 
 above mentioned doctrines, has been declared infallible and as 
 speaking with as much authority as God himself to the conscience 
 of Roman Catholics, and notably to that of the said Honorable 
 Judge. 
 
 “ Because the said Honorable Judge cannot render justice to 
 the appellant and condemn the defendants without violating each 
 and all of the propositions thus promulgated by the said Roman 
 authority. 
 
 “The Hon. Chief- Justice Duval ordered the clerk to receive 
 the petition, but to register nothing without having received special 
 instructions.” 
 
 PETITION IN RECUSATION DISALLOWED. 
 
 On the - 9th December the Court rendered judgment on Mr. 
 Doutre’s petition as follows : — 
 
 “ The Court refuses to allow petition in recusation of the four 
 judges to be received or fyled (Drummond J., dissenting partially). 
 Petition stigmatized as insulting to the judges recused and to 
 the Bench, and is regarded by the Court as amounting simply to 
 charges of treason and perjury against the judges recused.” 
 
 Badgley J., in rendering judgment, remarked that he stood in 
 a singular position, as being the only Judge of those composing 
 the Court at the time the petition was presented who was not re- 
 cused. The petition was addressed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, 
 sitting in Appeal in the District of Montreal, which was composed 
 on the day of presentation of only four judges, His Honor Judge 
 Drummond having been absent, and who expressed his deter- 
 mination, in consequence, not to take part in the decision of the 
 matter. The petition presented by the appellant called 
 upon the said Court of Queen’s Bench to take notice 
 that three of the judges composing the then Court — the 
 Chief Justice, Judges Caron and Monk — were recused from 
 sitting in judgment upon his demand, and a great number of 
 
RECUSATION OF THE JUDGES. 
 
 27 
 
 grounds, all more or less connected with ecclesiastical affairs and 
 certain declarations of the Head of the Romish Church, are 
 alleged in support of the pretensions of the petitioner appellant, 
 the substance of which is that the Head of the Church of Rome 
 has promulgated certain doctrines which destroy all authority of 
 the Queen, constitution, and of our public law. In argument 
 the counsel referred to the Act of Supremacy which, he asserted, 
 was overridden and set aside by these late enunciations of the 
 Romish Church. But His Honor said he would not enter into a 
 discussion of this argument, nor did he ffeel himself called upon 
 to do so, or to say whether, or to what extent these religious 
 theories would affect the judgment or opinions of his colleagues, 
 or of Roman Catholics in this Province. The laws and consti- 
 tution of the country are to be chiefly looked at in determining 
 this matter ; and the main question is to determine -whether the 
 impartiality or justice of the Bench would be affected by the 
 doctrines referred to in the present case, in which the respondent 
 is a portion of the religious body itself. As the substance of the 
 petition is to accuse the judges recused of treason and perjury, 
 it is necessary to examine carefully in limine whether such a 
 petition can be received at all by Court. 
 
 In support of the pretension that the authority of the Queen 
 was superseded and overridden, ecclesiastical law was resorted 
 to ; but His Honor was of opinion that it was outside of the pre- 
 sent matter, which should be determined according to the juris- 
 prudence of the country. To allow the grounds of the petition to 
 be true would be simply an acknowledgment of treason to the 
 civil ruler and perjury on the part of the judges recused, an ad- 
 mission which it could not be expected the judges would make- 
 Nor did His Honor think there was ground for the charges. A 
 petition containing such monstrous charges could not, in His 
 Honor’s opinion, be received by the Court, and was inadmissible 
 and could not be fyled. His Honor was clearly of opinion that 
 the judges recused could decide on the admissibility of the peti- 
 tion in recusation, and could reject it if it contained matters which 
 subjected it to rejection, and cited authorities to sustain his 
 opinion; amongst others that of the late Chief-Justice Stuart 
 and- Justice Panet, in a case decided in the Court of Queen’s 
 Bench, Quebec ; and, in concluding. His Honor said he felt there 
 
28 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 could be no doubt that such a paper is not admissible, and shall 
 not be put upon the fyles of the Court. 
 
 Drummond J., in explanation of his position, said he did not 
 regard the petition as having been fyled, and that, therefore, he 
 was not recused. He differed from his confreres as to the power 
 of the judges recused to determine the admissibility of the peti- 
 tion. He considered the petition could not be fyled of right 
 without permission, and quoted many authorities to sustain his 
 position. In indignant language he characterized the petition as 
 monstrous and insulting to the judges recused and to the Bench, 
 and thought it was rightly rejected as inadmissible, containing 
 none of the grounds of recusation recognized by the Code of Civil 
 Procedure, which His Honor relied on as being the law of the 
 land, superior to all decisions previous to its date. 
 
 Judge Caron and Chief- Justice Duval also concurred, and in 
 strong terms condemned the proceeding as insulting and 
 unheard of. 
 
 Mr. Doutre, Q. C., immediately moved for permission to ap- 
 peal to Her Majesty’s Privy Council from this judgment, and a 
 rule was allowed, returnable the first day of next term. 
 
VI. 
 
 JUDGMENT OF THE PEIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 In November, 1874, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee 
 of the Privy Council gave the following very able and elaborate 
 judgment. Amongst the many cases th’at have gone before that 
 august tribunal on appeal from Canada, none has created more 
 interest in England than the Guibord case, and upon no other 
 case have their Lordships bestowed more care, or exercised with 
 more impartiality, the resources of their great learning. 
 
 Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council on the Appeal of Dame, Henriette Brown 
 v. Les Cure et Marguilliers de I’CEuvre et Fabrique 
 de Notre- Dame de Montreal , from Canada ; delivered 
 2 1st November , 1874. 
 
 Present : 
 
 Lord Selborne. 
 
 Sir James W. Colville. 
 
 Sir Robert Phillimore. 
 
 Sir Barnes Peacock. 
 
 Sir Montague Smith. 
 
 Sir Robert P. Collier. 
 
 This is an appeal from a Judgment of -the Court of Queen’s 
 Bench for the Province of Quebec, in Canada, confirming a Judg- 
 ment of the Court of Review, which latter reversed a Judgment 
 of the Superior Court in First Instance. 
 
 The question which was the subject of these different Judg- 
 ments related to the burial of the remains of Joseph Guibord, one 
 of Her Majesty’s Roman 1 Catholic subjects, who died at Montreal, 
 on the 18th of November, 1869. 
 
 His widow and representative, Dame Henriette Brown, insti- 
 
30 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 tuted and prosecuted the suit in the Canadian Courts, and was 
 also the original Appellant before their Lordships. She died on 
 the 24th of March, 1873, and by her will devised her property to 
 the “ Institut Canadien,” and also appointed them her universal 
 legatees. 
 
 This Corporation, having accepted the appointment, applied 
 for leave to continue this Appeal, which leave was granted by 
 their Lordships, on the 26th of June, 1873. 
 
 This leave was granted without prejudice to any question 
 which might be raised as to the competency of the Institute to 
 continue the Appeal. It appeared that the widow had been con- 
 demned in the costs in the Canadian courts, and her universal 
 legatees were therefore, of course, interested in procuring the re- 
 versal of these sentences ; and the objection to their competency, 
 though mentioned in the “ Reasons” of the Respondents, was 
 not insisted upon in the arguments before us. 
 
 The suit on behalf of the representative of Guibord was for a 
 mandamus to “ Les Cure etMarguilliers de 1 ’CEuvre et Fabrique 
 de Montreal,” upon receipt of the customary fees, to bury his 
 body in the parochial cemetery of members of the Roman 
 Catholic Church at Montreal, entitled the “ Cemetery of La Cote 
 des Neiges,” conformably to usage and to law, and to enter such 
 burial in the civil register. 
 
 “ La Fabrique de Montreal ” is the corporation consisting of 
 the Cure and certain lay church officers called “ Marguilliers,” 
 whose relation to the church and churchyard is analogous to that 
 of churchwardens in an English parish. This corporation mana- 
 ges the temporalities of the church, which temporalities are also 
 sometimes designated by the title of kl La Fabrique.” 
 
 “ La Fabrique de Montreal ” had the control of this particular 
 cemetery. 
 
 The cemetery is divided into two parts, the smaller part being 
 separated from the larger by a paling. In the smaller part, are 
 buried unbaptized infants and those who have died “ sans les 
 secours ou les sacrements de l’Eglise and (as appears from 
 the evidence) persons who had committed suicide, and criminals 
 who had suffered capital punishment without being reconciled to 
 the Church. In the other and larger part are buried ordinary 
 Roman Catholics in the usual way, and with the rites of the Church. 
 
JUDGMENT of the privy council. 31 
 
 Neither portion of the cemetery is consecrated as a whole ; 
 but it is the custom to consecrate separately each grave in the 
 larger part, never in the smaller or reserved part. 
 
 The cemetery is thus practically divided into a part in which 
 graves are, and into a part in which they are not, consecrated. 
 
 The circumstances which led to this litigation were as 
 follows : — 
 
 Guibord was a lay parishioner of Montreal. He appears to 
 have been of unexceptionable moral character, and to have been, 
 both by baptism and education, a Roman Catholic, which faith 
 he retained up to the time of his death. 
 
 In the year 1844, a literary and scientific institution was form- 
 ed at Montreal for the purpose of providing a library, reading- 
 room, and other appliances for education. It was incorporated 
 by a Provincial Statute (16 Viet., c. 261), under the name of 
 the “ Institut Canadien.” 
 
 The preamble of this Statute recites : — 
 
 “Whereas several persons of different classes, ages, and professions, residing 
 in the city of -Montreal and elsewhere, have formed a literary and scientific asso- 
 ciation in the said city, under the name of the ' Institut Canadien,’ for the purpose 
 of establishing a library and reading-room, and of organising a system of mutual 
 and public instruction by means of lectures and courses of instruction.” 
 
 It then states that the number of members already exceeded 
 500, that they had a library of 2,000 volumes, and a reading-room 
 provided with newspapers and periodical publications. Then 
 follows a prayer to be constituted a legal corporation. The pray- 
 er was granted by the Legislature, and the statute incorporates 
 the Association, and directs, among other provisions, that the 
 corporation is to make an annual return to the Government of 
 their estates real and personal. 
 
 Guibord was one of the original members of this Institute. 
 
 In the year 1858, certain members of the Institute proposed a 
 Committee for the purpose of making a list of books in the libra- 
 ry, which, in their opinion, ought not to be allowed to remain 
 therein. 
 
 An amendment, however, was carried by a considerable 
 majority to the effect that the Institute contained no improper books, 
 that it was the sole judge of the morality of its library, and that the 
 existing Committee of Management was sufficient. 
 
3^ HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 On the 13th of April in the same year, the Roman Catholic 
 Bishop of Montreal published a pastoral, which was read in all 
 the churches of his diocese, in which he referred to what had 
 taken place at the meeting of the Institution, and after praising 
 the conduct -of the minority, pointed out that the majority had 
 fallen into two great errors : first, in declaring that they were the 
 proper judges of the morality of the books in their library, 
 whereas the Council of Trent had declared that this belonged 
 to the office of the Bishop ; secondly, in declaring that the 
 library contained only moral books, whereas it contained books 
 which were in the Index at Rome. The Bishop further cited a 
 decision of the Council of Trent, that any one who read or kept 
 heretical books would incur sentence of excommunication, and 
 that any one who read or kept books forbidden on other grounds 
 would be subject to severe punishment ; and he Concluded by 
 making an appeal to the Institute to alter their resolution, 
 alleging that otherwise no Catholic would continue to belong to 
 it. He says: — 
 
 ‘ ‘ Car il est a bien remarquer ici que ce n’est pas nous qui prononqons cette 
 terrible excommunication dont il est question, mais l’Eglise dont nous ne faisons 
 que publier les salutaires’decrets.” 
 
 The resolution of the Institute was not rescinded. 
 
 In 1865 several of the Roman Catholic members of the Insti- 
 tute, including Guibord, appealed to Rome against this pastoral. 
 
 They received no answer to their application. But in the 
 year 1869 the Bishop of Montreal issued a circular — 
 
 “ Publiant la reponse du Saint Office concernant l’lnstitut Canadien et le 
 Decret de la Sainte Congregation de l’lndex condamnant l’Annuaire du dit In- 
 stitut pour 1868.” 
 
 This circular was dated from Rome, 16th July, 1869. He also 
 sent a pastoral letter from Rome dated in August of that year, 
 which contained two enclosures ; one the sentence or answer of 
 the Holy Office, as printed in the case before us ; — 
 
 “ Illme. ac Rme. Dne. 
 
 “Cum in Generali Congregatione S.R. et U.I. habita feria IV. die 7 curr. 
 Emi. ac Rmi. Generates Inquisitores jamdiu motam de Instituo Canadensi con'- 
 troversiam ad examen revocassent, singulis mature ac diligenter expensis. A 
 tuse significandum voluerunt, rejiciendas omnino esse doctrinas in quodaiii an- 
 nuario quo dicti Instituti acta recensentur, contentas, ipsasque doctrinas ab eodem 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 35 
 
 November, the widow caused a request to be made on her be- 
 half to the Cure and to the Clerk of the Fabrique, to bury 
 Guibord in the cemetery, and tendered the usual fees. 
 
 Previously to this application M. Rousselot, the Cure, having 
 heard of the death of Guibord, and knowing that he was a mem- 
 ber of the Institute, had applied to the administrator of the 
 diocese for his directions. He replied that he had yesterday re- 
 ceived a letter from the Bishop of Montreal, directing him to re- 
 fuse absolution “ meme a Particle de la mort ” to members of 
 the Institute ; he could not, therefore, permit “ la sepulture 
 eccl^siastique ” to Guibord. The Cur£ having received the let- 
 ter, refused to bury Guibord in the larger pait of the cemetery, 
 where Roman Catholics were ordinarily buried, but offered to 
 allow him interment in the other part, without the performance 
 of any religious rites. 
 
 It seems that the agent of the widow offered to accept burial 
 in the larger part without religious services ; but this offer was 
 rejected. 
 
 On the 23rd of November, the widow presented a petition to 
 the Superior Court, setting out the facts and prayed that a manda- 
 mus might issue as above stated. 
 
 On the 24th, one of the judges of the Superior Court ordered 
 a writ of mandamus to issue, but it must be observed that the 
 writ issued was a writ of summons calling upon the defendants to 
 appear and answer the demand which should be made against 
 them by the plaintiff for the causes mentioned in the said petition 
 thereto annexed. The proceeding was in substance the same as 
 a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issu- 
 ed. The defendants appeared and filed a petition praying that the 
 writ might be annulled for irregularity, upon the ground that it 
 was a writ of summons and not a writ of mandamus, and also 
 upon other technical objections. The defendants, at the same 
 time, filed a traverse of the plaintiff’s petition and three pleas. 
 The first plea was to the same effect as the petition of the defend- 
 ants, and set up the same alleged grounds of irregularity, and 
 pointed out the same defects as those mentioned in that petition. 
 
 The second plea in substance denied that the respondents had 
 refused to bury the deceased, and alleged that they were entitled 
 to point out the place in the cemetery where he should be buried, 
 
36 HISTORY OP THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 and that they were ready to do so, and to give him such burial as 
 he was entitled to. 
 
 The third plea averred that the service ( culte ) of the Roman 
 Catholic religion in Canada is free, and the exercise of its religious 
 ceremonies of whatever nature is independent of all civil inter- 
 ference or control ; that, for the purpose of assuring the freedom 
 of that religion, the law recognizes the respondents as proprietors 
 of the Roman Catholic parish church of Montreal, and of its par. 
 sonage, cemeteries, and other dependencies, which are all Roman 
 Catholic, devoted to the exclusive use and exercise of that religion, 
 and subject to the exclusive control, and management of the 
 respondents and of the superior Roman Catholic ecclesiastical 
 authority ; that the respondents, in such capacity, had, for more 
 than ten yaars, been proprietors and in possession of the Roman 
 Catholic cemetery in question, and are empowered by law to point 
 out the precise spot in the cemetery where each burial is to be 
 made ; that, besides their above mentioned capacity, the respon- 
 dents are also civil officers within certain limits, having to fulfil 
 certain duties defined by law, and are legally responsible in that 
 capacity and sphere only ; that the respondents, in their double 
 capacity thus existing, are by the Roman Catholic religious 
 authority and by the law, set over the burial of persons of the 
 Roman Catholic denomination dying in the parish of Montreal, 
 and are responsible to the religious and civil authorities respect- 
 ively for the religious and civil portions of such functions ; that 
 the respondents for the execution of their double duty, and in 
 accordance with the immemorial custom of the Roman Catholic 
 parishes throughout the country, have assigned one part of the 
 cemetery for the burial of persons of Catholic denomination and 
 belief who are buried with Roman Catholic religious ceremonies, 
 and other part for the burial of those who are deprived of ecclesi. 
 astical burial ; that Joseph Guibord was a member of a literary 
 society at Montreal, called the Canadian Institute, and as such 
 was at the time of his death and had been for about ten years 
 previous notoriously and puplicly subject to canonical penalties 
 resulting from such membership and involving deprivation of 
 ecclesiastical burial ; that immediately after the death of Joseph 
 Guibord, the Rev. Victor Rousselot, Roman Catholic priest, and 
 curate of the parish of Montreal, submitted the question of his 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 37 
 
 religious burial to the Rev. Alexis Frdd6ric Truteau, Vicar-Gen- 
 eral of the Roman Catholic diocese of Montreal, and administra- 
 tor of the diocese, with supreme ecclesiastical authority therein, 
 in the absence of the Bishop, by virtue of the rescript of the Pope, 
 dated 4th October, 1868 ; and that the said administrator replied 
 by a decree declaring that, since Joseph Guibord was a member 
 of the Canadian Institute at the time of his death, ecclesiastical 
 burial could no.t be granted to him ; that the plaintiff, by her 
 agents, having required M. Rousselot and the respondents to give 
 to the body both religious and civil burial in the cemetery in 
 question, they repeatedly informed the said agents of such decree 
 of the administrator of the diocese, and that in consequence there- 
 of ecclesiastical burial could not be granted and was refused, but 
 that they were ready as civil officers to bury the remains civilly, 
 and authenticate the death according to law, which offer was 
 never accepted by the plaintiff or her agents, and that, having re- 
 gard to the above facts, the plaintiff could not claim from the 
 respondents for the remains of her late husband more than civil 
 burial, and that under the conditions laid down by the ecclesias- 
 tical laws of the Roman Catholic Church, which the respondents 
 had never refused. The plea then concluded by saying that the 
 respondents had refused nothing but ecclesiastical burial, for the 
 refusal of which they were responsible only before the religious 
 and not before the civil authority. 
 
 The widow filed several answers to these pleas, some in the 
 nature of demurrers, some of traverses of the facts alleged, and to 
 the third plea also a special answer, setting out the facts with 
 respect to the dispute between the Institute, the Bishop, and the 
 Court of Rome, — which have been already mentioned. 
 
 The respondents joined issue on these answers, and also by 
 leave of the Court, filed a special replication to the petitioner’s 
 third answer to the respondent’s third plea ; in which, after repeat- 
 ing that the Civil Courts were Incompetent to question a decision 
 of the ecclesiastical authorities on ecclesiastical matters, and could 
 not enquire into the grounds upon which ecclesiastical burial had 
 been refused to Guibord, they, nevertheless, cited the decrees of 
 the Council of Trent with regard to the Index and the proceed- 
 ings relating to the Institute, and concluded by an averment that, 
 in consequence of the premises, Guibord at the same time of his 
 
3 « 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 death must be considered as “ tin pecheur public,” and as such, 
 obnoxious to the canonical penalties imposed by the Roman 
 Catholic ritual, among which was privation of sepulture. 
 
 That the members of the Institute having refused to obey the 
 pastoral, and persisted in their refusal, “ le jugement de l’Evfique 
 imposant la peine canonique sus-mentionn6e est demeur£ en 
 pleine force et effet.” 
 
 It then avers, after stating the proceedings relating to an ap- 
 peal to Rome, that the Administrator-General, taking into Con- 
 sideration all the facts relating to Guibord, “comme membre du 
 dit Institut,” had “ justement rendu le decret qui l’a priv6 de la 
 sepulture eccl^siastique,” and further “ que le decret, rendu dans 
 la forme ou il se trouve, est d’ailleurs un ddcret nominal.” 
 
 Issue was joined on this special replication. 
 
 It is to be noticed that in this replication it is for the first 
 time alleged that on theground of his being “ un pecheur public, 
 Guibord was disentitled to ecclesiastical burial. 
 
 The case was argued before Mr. Justice Mondelet in the Su- 
 perior Court, on the demurrers and on the merits. 
 
 The Court gave judgment for the widow on the merits, and 
 on the demurrers to the first and third pleas, and ordered a per- 
 emptory writ of mandamus to issue ; but declared that it did not 
 pay any regard either to the widow’s special answer to the third 
 plea or the special replication, which it seems to have considered 
 as improperly pleaded. 
 
 There was an appeal to the Court of Revision, before three 
 judges, who reversed the judgment of the Court below, quashed 
 the writ originally issued, and dismissed the writ of mandamus 
 with costs. 
 
 From this judgment the widow appealed to the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench, and presented petitions of recusation against four 
 of the judges, which the judges refused to admit. It is unneces- 
 sary to enter upon this part of the case, as in the course of the 
 argument their Lordships fully expressed their opinion that these 
 petitions could not be sustained. 
 
 The Court of Queen’s Bench affirmed the judgment of the 
 Court of Revision ; but the judges did not agree as to the grounds 
 upon which their decision was founded. They discussed at some 
 length the matters raised upon the third plea ; but they decided 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 39 
 
 against the appellant upon the question as to the form of the writ 
 and the regularity of the proceedings. 
 
 The questions of form, which are not unimportant, may be 
 disposed of before the graver questions which arise out of the 
 third plea are considered. 
 
 And first, is the mandamus bad upon the ground of uncer- 
 tainty, or upon any other ground ? 
 
 Their Lordships are of opinion that the writ was in proper 
 form according to the Code of Procedure for Lower Canada ; 
 *he procedure therein pointed out, though called a mandamus, 
 was not a writ of mandamus in first instance, but, in effect, a 
 summons to answer a petition praying for an order upon the 
 defendants to do certain specified acts. The first thing to be 
 done by the defendants was not, as in the case of a writ of man- 
 damus in England, to make a return to the writ, but to appear 
 to the summons, and plead to the petition. The sections of the 
 Code of Procedure bearing upon this point are 1023, 1024 and 
 1025. Article 1023 evidently contemplates a writ of summons. 
 
 It says the application is made by petition, supported by affidavits 
 setting forth the facts of the case presented to the Court or a 
 judge, who may thereupon order the writ of summons, for it goes 
 on, “ and such writ is served in the same manner as any other 
 ■writ of summons." This is rendered more clear by Article 1024, 
 which directs the subsequent proceedings to be had in accordance 
 with the provisions of the first chapter of tlqat section. That 
 refers to Articles from 997 to 1002, both inclusive ; which, in 
 cases similar to our quo warranto , require an information to be 
 oresented to the Court or a judge, supported by affidavits, upon 
 which the issue of a writ of summons maybe ordered. The writ 
 of summons commands appearance upon a day fixed, and is to be 
 served in the manner pointed out. The defendants are to appear 
 on the day fixed (Article ion,) and to plead specially to the in- 
 formation (Article 1012). In the case of' mandamus under the 
 Code, therefore, the parties are not to make a return to the sum- 
 mons ; the pleadings are to commence with a plea to the petition, 
 and not a plea to the return to the writ. In our opinion, there- 
 fore, the objection to the writ, so far as it related to its being a 
 mere writ of summons, and not a writ of mandamus, was unten- 
 able, and the practice of the Court in this respect, which has 
 
40 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 always been adopted, is in compliance with the direction of the 
 Code. The other technical objections to the writ have no sub- 
 stantial foundation. Three of the judges of the Court of Queen s 
 Bench held that the writ was correct in point of form, although 
 one of them, Mr. Justice Badgley, being of opinion that the writ 
 asked for too much, held that a peremptory writ could not issue 
 commanding the defendants to do the one thing only, viz., to 
 bury, which, according to his views, they were legally bound to do. 
 The procedure, therefore, requiring a petition and plea to the 
 petition, it appears to follow that the applicant for the writ is not 
 so strictly bound by the prayer of his petition as he is in this 
 country to the command contained in the first writ of mandamus, 
 and that the Court mav mould the order for the peremptory writ 
 in the same manner as the Court here may mould the rule for a 
 mandamus. There being no rule which requires a peremptory 
 writ of mandamus to be granted in the precise terms of the first 
 writ, it seems to follow that the general rule applicable to plead- 
 ings either in equity or at common law, may be acted upon. 
 According to them, a plaintiff may generally obtain a decree for 
 less than that for which he asks, and for relief in a more distinct 
 and specific form than that for which he has prayed, provided it 
 is within the scope of the prayer. 
 
 In the present case the prayer of the petition was — that the 
 defendants might be commanded to bury or cause to be buried the 
 body of the deceased Joseph Guibord, in the Roman Catholic 
 Cemetery, conformably to usage and to law. That was, doubtless, 
 as pointed out by the Court of Review, extremely vague. 
 
 The objection to issuing a peremptory writ in that form was 
 clearly stated by Mr. Justice Mackay (Record, pp. 270, 271 ). 
 
 “ Under such vague conclusion,” he observes, “ the point really 
 meant to be tried is hidden. That the defendants are bound to 
 bury Guibord in the Roman Catholic Cemetery, according to the 
 usages and the law, is indisputable, and is not disputed. Per- 
 emptory mandamus to do this would, nevertheless, leave things 
 just as unsettled between plaintiff and defendants as they were the 
 day before the plaintiff presented the requete.” 
 
 But if the principle above laid down be acted upon, the Court 
 may, in a peremptory writ, specify distinctly what they consider 
 the defendants are bound to do according to usage and law, and 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 41 
 
 may peremptorily command the defendants to do it. If they con- 
 sider that the defendants are bound to provide ecclesiastical 
 burial with the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 they may say so. If they consider that the defendants are bound 
 to bury the body in that part of the eemetery in which bodies of 
 those interred with ecclesiastical burial are usually buried, the 
 peremptory writ may be worded accordingly. If they think the 
 defendants are bound to register the burial, the writ may go on to 
 order such registration ; or, if they think that the defendants are 
 not bound to register the burial, they can order the burial alone. 
 
 The next point of form relates to the question who are the 
 defendants to this writ. Are they the Cure and “ Marguilliers ” 
 personally, or in their corporate capacity ? The name used in the 
 conveyance of the land for the cemetery, and that used in the 
 plaint and writ of summons are identical. And their Lordships 
 upon the whole are clearly of opinion that the writ was against 
 “ les Cure et Marguilliers,” for the time being, in their corporate 
 capacity as holders of the land and administrators of the cemetery ; 
 and that the Cure in his individual or spiritual capacity is not a 
 party to this suit. 
 
 It now becomes necessary to determine the merits of the case, 
 and the grave questions of public and constitutional law which 
 are raised by the third plea, and the subsequent pleadings. 
 
 In order to do this, it is desirable to consider shortly the status 
 of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, both before and 
 after the cession of the Province of Quebec, in 1762. 
 
 It is certain that before the cession the Established Church of 
 that Province, as in the Kingdom of France itself, was the Roman 
 Catholic Church ; its law, however, being modified by what were 
 known as les liberty de l’Eglise Gallicane.” There seem also 
 to have been regular Ecclesiastical Courts, and besides them there 
 was vested in the Superior Council of Canada the jurisdiction 
 recognized in French jurisprudence and enforced by the Parlia- 
 ments of France as the “appellatio tanquam ab abusu,” or the 
 “ appel corarae d’ibus.” 
 
 In Dupin’s “ Manuel du Droit Public Ecclesiastique Francais,” 
 ed. 1845, the celebrated work of Pithou is set forth, with notes of 
 the learned editor, in the 79th Article. Pithou’s treatise defines 
 the “ appel comme d’abus” as that — 
 
42 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 “ Appellation precise que nos peres ont dit estre quand il y a entreprise de 
 jurisdiction ou attentat contre les saints dfecrets et canons receux en ce royaume, 
 droits, franchises, libertez, et privileges de l’Eglise Gallicane, concordats, edits, et 
 ordonnances du Roy, arrests de son Parlement : bref, contre ce qui est non- 
 seulement de droict commun, divin ou natural, mais aussi des prerogatives de ce 
 royaume et de l’Eglise d’iceluy.” 
 
 The following are the public documents which show how the 
 Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada was dealt with on the 
 conquest and cession of the province : — 
 
 The 27th Article of the Instrument of Cession is in these 
 terms : 
 
 ‘ ‘ Le libre exercice de la religion Catholique Apostolique et Romaine subsistera 
 en son entier, encorte que tous les etats et le peuple des villes et des campagnes, 
 lieux et postes eloignes, pourront continuer de s’ assembler dans les eglises et de 
 frequenter les sacrements comme ci-devant, sans etre inquietes d’aucune maniere > 
 directement ou indirectement. Ces peuples seront obliges par le Gouveroement 
 Anglais a payer sous le gouvemement de Sa Majeste Tres Chretienne. Accorde 
 pour le libre exercice de leur religion l’obligation de payer les dimes aux pretres 
 dependra de la volonte du Roi.” — -(Page 15, “ Actes Publics.”) 
 
 Again, in the Treaty of 1 763 it is said : — 
 
 “ Sa Majeste Britannique consent d’accorder la liberte de la religion Catho- 
 lique aux habitants du Canada, et leur permet de professer le culte de leur religion, 
 autant que les lois de 1’ Angleterre le permettent. ” 
 
 And lastly, by an Act of Parliament passed in x 774 ( J 4 Geo. 
 Ill, c. 83), intituled, “An Act for making more Effectual Pro- 
 vision for the Government of Quebec, in North America,” it was 
 declared by section 5 that, for the more perfect security and ease 
 of the minds of the inhabitants of the said province, His Majesty’s 
 subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome of and in 
 the said Province of Quebec might have, hold, and enjoy the free 
 exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the 
 King’s supremacy, declared and established by an Act made in 
 the first year of the reign of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, over 
 all the dominions and countries which then did, or should there- 
 after belong to the Imperial Crown of this realm, and that the 
 clergy of the said Church might hold, receive, and enjoy their 
 accustomed dues and rights with respect to such persons only as 
 should profess the said religion. 
 
 And by the 8th section it is enacted : 
 
 “That all His Majesty’s Canadian subjects within the Province of Quebec, 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 43 
 
 the religious orders and communities only excepted, may also hold and enjoy their 
 property and possessions, together with all customs and usages relative thereto, and 
 all other their civil rights, in as large, ample, and beneficial manner as if the said 
 Proclamation, Commissions, Ordinances, and other Acts and Instruments had not 
 been made, and as may consist with their allegiance to His Majesty, and subjection 
 to the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain ; and that in all matters of con- 
 troversy, relative to property and civil rights, resort shall be had to the laws of 
 Canada as the rule for the decision of the same,” &c. 
 
 From these documents it would follow that, although the 
 Roman Catholic Church in Canada may on the conquest have 
 ceased to be an Established Church in the full sense of the term, 
 it, nevertheless, continued to be a Church recognized by the State ; 
 retaining its endowments, and continuing to have certain rights 
 (e. the perception of “ dimes” from its members) enforceable 
 at law. 
 
 It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that the 
 effect of the Act of Cession, the Treaty, and subsequent legisla- 
 tion, has been to leave the law of the Roman Catholic Church as 
 it existed and was in force before the Cession, to secure to the 
 Roman Catholic inhabitants of Lower Canada all the privileges 
 which their fathers, as French subjects, then enjoyed under the 
 head of the liberties of the Gallican Church ; and further, that the 
 Court of Queen’s Bench, created in 1 794, possessed, and that the 
 existing Superior Court now possesses, as the Superior Coun- 
 cil heretofore possessed, the power of enforcing these 
 privileges by proceedings in the nature of “appel comme 
 d’abus.” Considering the altered circumstances of the 
 Roman Catholic Church in Canada, the non-existence of any 
 recognized ecclesiastical Courts in that Province, such as those in 
 France which it was the office of an “ appel comme d’abus” to 
 control and keep within their jurisdiction ; and the absence of any 
 mention in the recent Code of Procedure for Lower Canada of 
 such a proceeding, their Lordships would feel considerable diffi- 
 culty in affirming the latter of the above propositions Mr. 
 Justice Mondelet, indeed, (Record 227-236) refers in his judg- 
 ment to various cases of a mixed character in which the Civil 
 Courts appear at first sight to have recently exercised a jurisdic- 
 tion somewhat analogous to that exercised in the “ appel 
 comme d’abus.” But on examination these cases prove to be 
 suits of a different character, actions for damages against 
 
44 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 spiritual persons for wrongs done by them in their spiritual 
 capacities. 
 
 Their Lordships do not, however, think it necessary to expres 
 any opinion as to the competence of the Civil Courts to entertain 
 a suit in the nature of the “ appel comme d’abus,” as they agree 
 with Mr. Justice Mackay and other judges of the Court of Revision, 
 that in such a suit the procedure must be different from the 
 present, and that at least it would be necessary to bring the proper 
 ecclesiastical authorities before the Court as defendants. 
 
 It is another and a different question, to be considered here- 
 after, whether the jurisprudence and precedents relating to the 
 “ appel comme d’abus” may not be considered by their Lordships 
 as evidencing the law of the Church in Canada, by the malad- 
 ministration of which the appellant complains that he has been 
 wronged. 
 
 Nor do their Lordships think it is necessary to pronounce an 
 opinion upon the difficult questions which were raised in the 
 argument before them touching the precise status, at the present 
 time, of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. It has, on the 
 one hand, undoubtedly, since the cession, wanted some of the 
 characteristics of an Established Church ; whilst, on the other 
 hand, it differs materially in several important particulars from 
 such voluntary religious societies as the Anglican Church in the 
 Colonies, or the Roman Catholic Church in England. The pay- 
 ment of “ dimes” to the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church 
 by its lay members, and the rateability of the latter to the main- 
 tenance of parochial cemeteries, are secured by law and statutes. 
 These rights of the Church must beget corresponding obligations, 
 and it is obvious that this state of things may give rise to questions 
 between the laity and clergy which can only be determined by the 
 Municipal Courts. It seems, however, to their Lordships, to be 
 unnecessary to pursue this question, because even if this Church 
 were to be regarded merely as a private and voluntary religious 
 society resting only upon a consensual basis, Courts of Justice are 
 still bound, when due complaint is made that a member of the 
 society has been injured as to his rights, in any matter of a mixed 
 spiritual and temporal character, to enquire into the laws or rules 
 of the tribunal or authority' which has inflicted the alleged injury. 
 
JUDGMENT OP THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 45 
 
 In the case of “ Long vs. the Bishop of Cape-Town,” their 
 Lordships said : — 
 
 “ The Church of England, in places where there is no Church established by 
 law', is in the same situation with any other religious body — in no better, but in 
 no worse position ; and the members of any other communion may adopt rules 
 for enforcing discipline within their body which -will be binding on those who, 
 expressly or by implication, have assented to them. It may be further laid down 
 that, where any religious or other lawful association has not only agreed on the 
 terms of its union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether the 
 rules of the association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what 
 shall be the consequence of such violation ; the decision of such tribunal will be 
 binding when it has acted within the scope of its authority, has observed such 
 forms as the rules require, if any forms be prescribed, and, if not, has proceeded 
 in a manner consonant with the principles of justice.” — (1 Moore, N. S., 461). 
 
 Their Lordships will bear in mind these principles in the judg- 
 ment which they are about to pronounce. 
 
 Now, what is the question to be here decided ? It is the right 
 of Guibord to interment in the ordinary way in the cemetery of 
 his parish, a right enforceable by his representative. It may be 
 observed that the Cure and Marguilliers are only proprietors of 
 the parochial cemetery, in the sense in which a parson in England 
 is the owner of the freehold of the churchyard, that is to say, sub- 
 ject to the right of the parishioner to be buried therein. The 
 respondents do not contest that Guibord had that right, but say 
 that they have refused nothing but eccle'siastical burial, for the 
 refusal of which they are responsible only to the religious, and not 
 to the civil authority. They admit, however, that the consequence 
 of the refusal of ecclesiastical burial is that the remains of the 
 deceased can be interred only in the smaller or reserved portion 
 of the cemetery. It cannot be doubted on the evidence that this 
 qualification of the general right of interment, this separation of 
 the grave from the ordinary place of sepulture, implies degrada- 
 tion, not to say infamy. 
 
 That forfeiture of the right to ecclesiastical burial, involving 
 these consequences, may be legally incurred, is not denied by the 
 appellants. Their contention is, that it was not so incurred by 
 Guibord ; that, according to the law of the religious community 
 to which he belonged, he retained at the time of his death his 
 right to be buried in the larger portion of the cemetery in the usual 
 manner. 
 
46 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 Their Lordships are disposed to concur, with one qualifica- 
 tion, in the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Berthelot as to the 
 mixed character of these questions. He says : 
 
 “Le bapteme, le manage, et la sepulture sont de matiere mixte, et les 
 ecclesiastiques ne peuvent se refuser de les administrer a ceux de leurs paroissiens 
 qui y ont droit, comme residants dans l’enclave de sa paroisse, & moins cependant 
 qu’il n’y ait des peines ecclesiastiques prononcees contre eux par l’eveque ou autre 
 autorite ecclesiastique competente. ” 
 
 If this passage is to be taken to imply that it is competent to 
 the Bishop to deprive a Roman Catholic subject of his rights by 
 pronouncing against him ex mero motu ecclesiastical penalties, 
 their Lordships are of opinion that the proposition is too wide. 
 They conceive that, if the act be questioned in a Court of Justice, 
 that Court has a right to enquire, and is bound to enquire, whether 
 that act was in accordance with the law and rules of discipline of 
 the Roman Catholic Church which obtain in Lower Canada, and 
 whether the sentence, if any, by which it is sought to be justified, 
 was regularly pronounced by an authority competent to pro- 
 nounce it. 
 
 It is worthy of observation, as bearing both upon the question 
 of the status of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, 
 and the manner of ascertaining the law by which it is governed, 
 that in the Courts below, it was ruled, apparently at the instance 
 of the respondents, that the law, including the ritual of the Church, 
 could not be proved by witnesses, but that the Courts were bound 
 to take judicial notice of its provisions. 
 
 The application of this ruling would be difficult, unless it be 
 conceded that the ecclesiastical law which now governs Roman 
 Catholics in Lower Canada is identical with that which governed 
 the French province of Quebec. If modifications of that law 
 have been introduced since the cession they have not been intro- 
 duced by any legislative authority. They must have been the 
 subject of something tantamount to\ consensual contract binding 
 the members of that religious community, and, as such, ought, if 
 invoked in a Civil Court, to be regularly proven. 
 
 It seems, however, to be admitted on both sides that the law 
 upon the point in dispute is to be found in the Quebec ritual, which 
 was certainly accepted as law in Canada before the cession of the 
 province, and does not differ in any material particular from the 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 33 
 
 Institute) traditas prorsus reprobandas. Animadvertentes insuper laudati Emi. ac 
 Rmi. Patres valde timendum esse ne per hujusmodi pravas doctrinas Christianoe 
 juventutis institutio et educatio in discrimen adducatur, dum commendandum ex- 
 presserunt zelum ac vigilantiam a te hue usque adhibitam excitandam eamdem 
 [the next word is a misprint] jusserunt, ut una cum turn dioeceSeos clero omnem 
 curam conferas, uf Catholici ac prsesertim juventus a memoranto Instituto, quous- 
 que perniciosas doctrinas in eo edoceri constiterit, arceantur. Dum vero laudibus 
 prosequuti sunt alteram societatem Institutum Canadensc Gallicum nuncupatam, 
 nec non ephemeridem dictam “ Courrier de St. Hyacinths utramque fovandam 
 adjuvandam que mandarunt ut ita iis damnis ac malis remedia quaerantur, quae ex 
 alio prsefato Instituto haud dimanare non possunt. Quod a tuse pro mei muneris 
 ratione communicans omni cum observantia maneo. 
 
 “Romas ex did. S.C. de P.F. die 14 Julii, i860, &c.” 
 
 The other inclosure was a Decretum of the “ Congregatio,” 
 to whom the care of the Index was committed, it was as 
 follows : — 
 
 “Decretum. 
 
 “Feria II, die 12 Julii, 1869. 
 
 “ Sacra Congregatio Eminentissimorum ac Reverendissimorum Sanctse Ro 
 manse Ecclesiae Cardinalium a SANCTISSIMO DOMINO NOSTRO PIO 
 PAPA IX. sanctaque Sede Apostolica Indici librorum pravse doctrinse, eorum- 
 demque proscriptioni, expurgationi ac permissioni in universa Christiana republica 
 praepositorum et delegatorum, habita in Palatio Apostolico Vaticano, die 12 Juli 
 1869 damnavit et damnat, proscribit proscribitque, vel alias damnata atque pros- 
 cripta in Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum referri mandavit et mandat opera qu* 
 sequuntur.” 
 
 Then the names of several works unconnected with the In- 
 stitute are mentioned. And then — 
 
 “ Annuaire de l’lnstitut Canadian pour 1868, celebration du 24eme anniver 
 sire de l’lnstitut Canadien le 17 Decembre, 1868. (Deer. S. Officii Feria IV, 
 
 die 7 Julii 1869. ... 
 
 “ Itaque nemo cujuscumque gradus et conditions preedutx opera damnata 
 
 tque proscripta, quocumque loco, et quocumque idiomate, aut in posterum edere, aut 
 dita leget e vel rttinere audeat, sed locorum ordinariis, aut heretic* p-avitatis in- 
 uisitorihus ea tradere teneatur, sub panic in Indue librorum vetitorum indictis. 
 
 «< Quibus SANCTISSIMO DOMINO NOSTRO PIO PAPAL IX. per me 
 nfrascriptum S.I.C. a Secretis relatis SANCTITAS SUA decretum probavit, 
 t promulgari pracepit. In quotum fidem, &c. 
 
 “ Datum Romce, die 16 Julii, 1869. 
 
 The pastoral letter containing this enclosure drew attention to 
 the fact that two things were especially forbidden by this Decre- 
 tum —1 To belong to the Institute while it taught pernicious 
 doctrines. 2. To publish, retain, keep or read the “ Annuaire,” 
 c 
 
3 + 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 of 1868. And the Bishop also pointed out that any person who 
 persisted in keeping or reading the “ Annuaire,” or in remaining 
 a member of the Institute, would be deprived of the Sacrament, 
 “ m&me a l’article de la mort.” 
 
 The Institute held a meeting on the 23rd September, 1869, 
 and resolved : — 
 
 “ 1. Que l’Institut Canadien, fonde dans un but purement litteraire et scien- 
 tifique, n’a aucune espece d’enseignement doctrinaire, et exclut avec soin tout en- 
 seignement de doctrines pernicieuses dans son sein. 
 
 “2. Que les membres Catholiques de l’Institut Canadien, ayant appris la 
 condamnation del’ Annuaire de 1868 de l’Institut Canadien par decret de l’autorit 4 
 Romaine, ddclarent se soumettre purement et simplement a ce decret 
 
 These concessions produced no effect. 
 
 The Bishop in a letter, the last which appears in the case, 
 dated Rome, 30th October, 1869, to the Administrator of the 
 Diocese at Montreal (which that officer received, he says, on the 
 17th November, the day before Guibord’s death), denounces 
 these concessions as hypocritical, and gives five reasons why 
 they are insufficient, the third of which is — 
 
 * • 3. Parceque cet acte de soumission fait partie d’un rapport du comite ap- 
 prouve a l’unanimite par le corps de l’lnstitut, dans lequel est proclame une reso- 
 lution tenue jusqu’alors secrete, qui etablit en principe la tolerance religieuse qu 
 a ete la principale cause de la condamnation de l’Institut. 
 
 The letter concludes — 
 
 “ Tous comprendront qu’en matiere si grave il n’y a pas d’absolution &. donner 
 pas meme k l’article de la mort, k ceux qui ne voudraient pas renoncer k l’Instrtut, 
 qui n’a fait qu’un acte d’hypocrisie, en feignant de se soumettre au Saint Siege.” 
 
 It is right to observe here that this “ principal ground of con- 
 demnation” of the Institute, viz., that it had passed a resolution 
 which established the principle of religious toleration, was en- 
 tirely new, does not appear in any former document, and further, 
 it would seem, could not have been known by Guibord. 
 
 It should also be mentioned, in order to complete the neces- 
 sary history of the case, that Guibord, about six years before his 
 death, being dangerously ill, was attended by a priest, who ad- 
 ministered unction to him, but refused to administer Holy Com- 
 munion unless he resigned his membership of the Institute, which 
 Guibord declined to do. 
 
 Guibord having died, as has been stated, on the 18th Novem- 
 ber, 1869, suddenly, of an attack of paralysis, on the 20th of 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PkIVY COUNCIL. 47 
 
 Roman ritual also cited in the Couit below. The Quebec ritual 
 is as follows : — 
 
 “ On doit refuser la sepulture ecclesiastique,— lo, aux Juifs, aux infideles, 
 aux heretiques, aux apostats, aux schismatiques, et enfin a tous ceux qui ne font 
 pas profession de la religion Catholique. 20. Aux enfants morts sans bapteme. 
 30. A ceux qui auraient ete nommement excommunies ou interdits, si ce n’est 
 qu’avant de mourir ils aient donne des marques de douleur, auquel cas on pourra 
 leur accorder la sepulture ecclesiastique, apr&s que la censure aura ete levee par 
 nos ordres. 40. A ceux qui se seraient tues par colere ou par desespoir, s’ils 
 n’ont donne avant leur mort des marques de contrition ; il n’en est pas de meme 
 de ceux qui se seraient tues par frenesie ou accident, auxquels cas on la doit 
 accorder. 50. A ceux qui ont ete tues en duel, quand meme ils auraient donne des 
 marques de repentir avant leur mort. 60. A ceux qui, sans excuse legitime, 
 n’auront pas satisfait a leur devoir pascal, 4 moins qu’ils n’aient donne des marques 
 de contrition. 70. A ceux qui sont morts notoirement coupables de quelque 
 peche mortel, comme si un fidiile avait refuse de se confesser, et de recevoir les 
 autres sacrement avant que de mourir, s’il etait mort sans vouloir pardonner a ses 
 ennemis, s’il avait ete assex impie pour blasphemer sciemment et volontairement 
 sans avoir donne aucun signe de penitence. II ne faudrait pas user de la meme 
 rigueur envers celui qui aurait blaspheme par folie ou par la violence du mal, car 
 en ce cas les blasphemes ne seraient pas volontaires, ni par consequent des peches- 
 80. Aux pecheurs publics qui seraient morts dans l’impenitence ; tels sont les 
 concubinaires, les filles ou femmes proslituees, les sorciers et les farceurs, usuriers, 
 etc. A l'egard de ceux dont les crimes seraient secrets, comme on ne leur refuse 
 pas les sacrements, on ne doit pas aussi leur refuser, la sepulture ecclesiastique 
 Pour ce qui est des criminels qui auront ete condamnes a mort et executes par 
 ordre de la justice, s’ils sont morts penitents, on peut leur accorder la sepulture 
 ecclesiastique, mais sans ceremonie. Le cure ou vicaire y assiste sans surplis, et 
 disent les prieres a voix basse. Quand il y aura quelque doute sur ces sortes de 
 choses, les cures nous consulteront ou nos grands vicaires. 
 
 The refusal of ecclesiastical burial to Guibord is not justified, 
 and could not have been justified by either the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 
 or 7th of the above rules. 
 
 To bring him within the 3rd rule it would be necessary to 
 show that he was excommunicated by name. That such a 
 sentence of excommunication might be passed against a Roman 
 Catholic in Canada and that it might be the duty of the Civil 
 Courts to respect and give effect to it, their Lordships do not deny . 
 It is no doubt true, as has already been observed, that there are 
 now in Canada no regular ecclesiastical Courts, such as existed 
 and were recognized by the State when the province formed part 
 of the dominions of France. It must, however, be remembered 
 that a Bishop is always a judex ordinarius, according to the 
 
48 
 
 HISTORY OF THB GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 canon law, may hold a Court and deliver judgment if he has not 
 appointed an official to act for him. And it must further be 
 remembered that, unless such sentences were recognized, there 
 would exist no means of determining amongst the Roman Catholics 
 of Canada the many questions touching faith and discipline which, 
 upon the admitted canons of their Church, may arise amongst 
 them. There is, however, no proof that any sentence of excom- 
 munication was ever passed against Guibord nomtnatim by the 
 Bishop or any other ecclesiastical authority. Indeed, it was 
 admitted at the Bar that there was none ; their Lordships are 
 therefore relieved from the necessity of considering how far such 
 a sentence, if passed, might have been examinable by the Tem- 
 poral Court, when a question touching its legal effect and validity 
 was brought before that Court. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that an issue was distinctly raised 
 by the pleadings upon the fact of such a sentence ; and the neces- 
 sity of such a sentence to justify the refusal seems to be, to some 
 extent, admitted by the allegation in the defendant’s pleading that 
 le decret , as it is there called, of the Administrator-General, was 
 un decret nominal. 
 
 In the course of the argument it was suggested, rather than 
 argued, that the refusal of ecclesiastical burial in Guibord’s case 
 might be brought within the 6th of the above rules, and justified 
 on the ground that, without legitimate reason, he had failed to 
 communicate at Easter. But upon this their Lordships have to 
 observe that this failure was not the ground on which ecclesiasti- 
 cal burial was denied to him ; and that, so far from wilfully 
 abstaining from receiving the sacraments of the Church, those 
 sacraments were refused to him when he desired to receive them, 
 simply because he continued to be a member of the Institute. 
 
 The cause of refusal finally insisted upon was that Guibord 
 was “ un pfecheur public ” within the meaning of the 8th rule. 
 
 This defence was set up for the first time in the replication. 
 
 The Administrator-General’s evidence on the point should be 
 noticed : — 
 
 “ Question . — Pour quelle raison feu Joseph Guibord, comme membre de 
 l’Institut Canadien, ne pouvait-il pas etre admis aux sacrements de l’Eglise ? 
 
 “ Rlponse . — Parce que, comme tel, il est consider^ comme pecheur public. 
 On entend par pecheur public celui qui, pour une raison connue publiquement, ne 
 peut participer aux sacrements de l’Eglise. M. Joseph Guibord, en appartenant a 
 
REV. CURE ROUSSELOT.— (Seepage 140.) 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 49 
 
 l'lnstitut Canadien, appartenait k un Institut qui se trouvait, comme il se trouve 
 encore, sous les censures de l’Eglise par la raison qu’il possede une bibliothfique 
 contenant des livres defendus par l’Eglise sous peine d’excommunication, lata 
 sentential encourue ipso facto , et reservee au Pape, par le fait de la possession des 
 dits livres. Cette espece d’excommunication s’encourt par le fait meme, des que 
 l’on connait la loi de l’Eglise qui en defend la lecture et la retenue, dds que cela 
 parvient a la connaissance de ceux qui les possedent. Cette excommunication a 
 atteint M. Guibord par le fait meme qu’il etait membre de l’lnstitut. Lorsqu’on 
 est sous l’effet de la dite excommunication, quoique l’on puisse continuer a dtre 
 membre de l’Eglise Catholique, et que, de fait, l’on continue & en etre membre, 
 1’ou est prive de la participation aux sacrements, ce qui entraine la privation de la 
 sepulture ecclesiastique. Voili pourquoi cette espece de sepulture a ili refusee a 
 M. Guibord.” 
 
 The evidence continues — 
 
 “ Question. — Le dit feu Joseph Guibord, comme membre de l’lnstitut 
 Canadien, etait-il sous l’effet de 1’excommunication, en vertu de quelque r&gle 
 generale de l’Eglise seulement, ou en consequence de quelque d&ret particulier ? 
 
 “ Riponse. — II y etait d’abord en vertu de la loi generale de l’Eglise, et en 
 vertu de 1’application qu’en a faite l’Eveque de Montreal par son mandement. ” 
 
 The evidence further continues — 
 
 “ Question. — A quel mandement faites-vous allusion ? 
 
 “ Riponse. — C’est k celui produit en cette cause comme l’Exhibit B. de 1* 
 Demanderesse. 
 
 “ Question. — Est-il declare quelque part dans aucun mandement ou lettre 
 pastorale 4manant de 1’Eveque de Montreal que le fait d’appartenir Ei l’lnstitut 
 Canadien entraine l’excommunication ; et si vous repondez affirmativement, 
 veuillez indiquer les termes qui decretent telle chose. 
 
 “ Riponse . — Ceci est declare dans l’annonce de Monseigneur de Montreal, 
 que, en ma qualit6 d’administrateur, j’ai fait publier le quatorze Aout mil huit cent 
 soixante-et-neuf, laquelle annonce est produite comme piece D. de la Demande- 
 resse. Voici dans quels termes ceci est dficlar4. “Ainsi, nos tr& chers fibres, 
 deux choses sont ici specialement et strictement defendues, savoir : I, de faire 
 
 partie de l’lnstitut Canadien tant qu’il enseignera des doctrines pemicieuses ; et 2, 
 de publier, retenir, garder, lire VAnnuaire du dit Institut pour 1868. Ces deux 
 commandements .de l’Eglise sont en matiere grave, il y a par consequent un 
 grand peche a les violer sciemment. En consequence celui qui persiste a vouloir 
 rester dans le dit Institut, ou i lire ou seulement garder le sus-dit Annuaire, sans 
 y etre autorise par l’Eglise, se prive lui-meme des sacrements, m&me a l’article 
 de la mort, parceque, pour etre digne d’en approcher, il faut detester le peche, qui 
 donne la mort a I’&me, et Stre dispose k ne plus le commettre.” 
 
 “ Question.— Etre prive des sacrements et &re excommunie, est-ce la m?me 
 ho se ? 
 
 “ Riponse. —Dans le cas present, c’est la mSme chose. 
 
 P 
 
HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 SO 
 
 “ Question. — L’excommunication, peut-elle etre prononcee sans qu’il soit 
 meme fait usage du mot ? 
 
 “ Riponse. — Je ne suis pas pret & repondre a cette question.” — (Record ( 
 146. 7). 
 
 It is impossible wholly to avoid a suspicion that it had 
 originally been intended to rely on an ipso facto excommunication, 
 and that this subsgquent defence of “ pecheur public ” was 
 resorted to when it became manifest that a sentence of excommu- 
 nication was necessary, and that none had been pronounced. 
 
 What is this category of “ pecheur public” to include ? Is the 
 category capable of indefinite extension by means of the use of 
 an et ccetera in the Quebec Ritual, or if the force of an et ccetera 
 is to be allowed to bring a man within the category of persons 
 liable to what in ecclesiastical law is a criminal penalty, must it 
 not be confined to offences ejusdem generis as those specified ? 
 Guibord’s case did not come within any of the enumerated 
 classes. 
 
 Some argument was raised as to the effect of the words, 
 “ quand il y aura quelque doute sur ces sortes de chose, les Cures 
 nous consulteront ou notre grand Vicaire but their Lordships 
 are of opinion that these words can at most imply a duty on the 
 part of the Cure to consult the Ordinary as to the application of 
 the law in doubtful cases, not a power on the part of the Ordinary 
 to enlarge the law in giving those directions, or to create a new 
 category of offenders. 
 
 To allow a discretionary addition to, or an enlargement of, the 
 categories specified in the Ritual, would be fraught with the most 
 startling consequences. For instance, the et ccetera might be, 
 according to the supposed exigency of the particular case, ex- 
 panded. so as to include within its bann any person being in 
 habits of intimacy or conversing with a member of a literary so- 
 ciety containing a prohibited book ; any person visiting a friend 
 who possessed such a book ; any person sending his son to a 
 school in the library of which there was such a book ; going to a 
 shop where such books were sold ; and many other instances 
 might be added. Moreover, the Index, which already forbids 
 Grotius, Pascal, Pothier, Thuanus, and Sismondi, might he made 
 to include all the writings of jurists and all legal reports of judg- 
 ments supposed to be hostile to the Church of Rome ; and the 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 SI 
 
 Roman Catholic lawyer might find it difficult to pursue the 
 studies of his profession. 
 
 Their Lordships are satisfied that such a discretionary enlarge- 
 ment of the .categories in the Ritual would not have been deemed 
 to be within the authority by the law ofthe Gallican Church as it 
 existed in Canada before the cession ; and, in their opinion, it is 
 not established that there has been such an alteration in the status 
 or law of that Church founded on the consent of its members, as 
 would warrant such an interpretation of the Ritual, and that the 
 true and just conclusion of law on this point is, that the fact of 
 being a member of this Institute does not bring a man within the 
 category of a public sinner to whom Christian burial can be legally 
 refused. 
 
 It would further appear that, according to r the ecclesiastical 
 law of France, a personal sentence was in most cases required in 
 order to constitute a man a public sinner. 
 
 yean de Pontas (Article 2, des Cas de Conscience, vo. Sepul- 
 ture, A. D. 1715, Record 245) says : — 
 
 “Un homme en France n’est point cense pecheur public, et ne peut etre 
 traite comme tel, a moins qu’il n’y ait une sentence declaratoire rendue par le 
 jugment ecclesiastique contre le coupable. 
 
 “ A propos d’un concubinaire public, pendant pres de dix ans, mort endurci 
 dans le crime, sans avoir voulu se confesser, Pontas decide que ‘ le cure doit 
 enterrer cet homme en observant toutes les formalites pratiquees par l’Eglise, sans 
 pouvoir ni s’absenter, ni feindre de refuser la sepulture ecclesiastique, sous pretexte 
 d’intimider les autres pecheurs semblables, ni enfin ordonner a un autre pretre de 
 1’enterrer sans observer les ceremonies ordinaires.’ ” 
 
 Durant de Maillane (Droit Canonique, t. 5, p. 442.) says: — 
 
 “ On ne reconnait pour vcritables excommunies a fuir, que les Pai'ens et les 
 Juifs, ou les heretiques condamnes et separes ainsi totalement du corps des fideles, 
 Les autres coupables de differents crimes qu’ils n’expient point avant leur mort ne 
 sont prives de la sepulture que lorsq’ils sont denonces excommunies, ou que leu r 
 impenitence finale est tellement notoire qu’on ne peut absolument s’en deguiser la 
 connaissance. Le moindre doute tire le defont hors du cas deprivation, parce que 
 chacun est presume penser a son salut. 
 
 “ Suivant les maximes du royaume, on ne prive de la sepulture ecclesiastique 
 que les heretiques separes de la communion de 1 Eglise, et les excommunies 
 denonces. La notoriete sur cette mature n’est pas absolument requise, parce qu’il 
 y a des cas oil il est tres necessaire de faire respecter a cet egard les saintes lois de 
 l’Eglise ; mais elle n’est pas aiscment reque, a cause des inconvenients qui pour- 
 raient en resulter ; car le refus de la sepulture est regarde parmi nous comme une 
 telle injure, ou meme comme un tel crime, que chaque fiddle, pour 1 honneur de 
 
52 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 la religion, et la memoire ou mime le bien de son frere en Jlsus-Christ, est rece- 
 vable a s’en plaindre. Cette plainte se porte devant des juges seculiers, parce 
 qu’elle interesse en quelque sorte le bon ordre dans la societe, et l’honneur mime 
 de ses membres.” 
 
 Hericourt (Lois Eccldsiastiques, p. 174,) : — 
 
 ‘‘ Avant de denoncer excommunil celui qui a encouru une excommunication 
 lata sententia, il faut le citer devant le juge ecclesiastique, afin de justifier le crime 
 qui a donne lieu a la censure et d’examiner s’il n’y aurait pas quelque xnoyen de 
 defense legitime a proposer. ” 
 
 No personal sentence, such as is contemplated by these 
 authorities, was, as already pointed out, ever passed against 
 Guibord. 
 
 It is also to be borne in mind that no sentence, whatever 
 might have been its value, was passed even after Guibord’s death. 
 There is, indeed, a letter called a d&cret of the Administrator- 
 General to the Cur6, which, after referring to a letter of the 
 Bishop, written before Guibord’s death, refuses ecclesiastical 
 sepulture to him as a member of the Institute. The representa- 
 tives of Guibord were neither summoned nor heard. This so- 
 called decret had none of the essential elements of a judicial 
 sentence. 
 
 It remains for their Lordships to consider what in the substan- 
 tive law upon which the respondents rely in support of their con- 
 tention that Guibord is to be considered a public sinner within 
 the terms of the Quebec ritual. 
 
 They appear to place their principal reliance on Rule X of 
 the Council of Trent : — 
 
 “ Omnibus fidelibus pnecipitur ne quis audeat contra harum regularum 
 prsescriptum, aut hujus Indicis prohibitionem libros aliquos legere aut habere. 
 
 “Quod si quis libros hereticorum vel cujus vis auctoris scripta ob heresim vel 
 ob falsi dogmatis suspicionem damnata, atque prohibita legerit vel habuerit, statim 
 in excommunicationis sententiam incurrat.” 
 
 Various observations arise on this citation, which seem to de- 
 prive it of all authority in the present case. 
 
 In the first place it is a matter almost of common knowledge, 
 certainly of historical and legal fact, that the decrees of this Coun- 
 cil, both those that relate to discipline and to faith, were never 
 admitted in F ranee to have effect proprio vigore , though a great 
 portion of them has been incorporated into French Ordonnances. 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL 
 
 53 
 
 In the second place, France has never acknowledged nor received, 
 but has expressly repudiated, the decrees of the Congregation of 
 the Index. 
 
 Gibert , in his Institutes, says that the ipso facto excommunica- 
 tion inflicted by the Counoil of Trent as the punishment of read- 
 ing or possessing prohibited books would have no effect in France 
 dans le fort exterieur. Dupin , a jurist already mentioned, de- 
 nies the authority in France of the decrees of the Congregation. 
 He says : — 
 
 “ En effet, en consultant les precedents, on trouve un cdlebre arret du Parle- 
 ment de Paris qui l’a juge ainsi 1647, apres un eloquent plaidoyer de l’Avocat- 
 General Omer Talon : 
 
 Nous tie reconnoissons point en France ,’ dit ce Magistrat, ‘l’autorite, la 
 puissance, ni la jurisdiction des congregations qui se tiennent a Rome ; le Pape 
 peut les etablir comme bon lui semble dans ses Etats ; mat's les cUcrets de ces con - 
 p-egations n'ont point d autorite ni :i' execution dans le royaume. . . . . II est 
 
 vrai que dans ces congregations se censurent les livres defendus, et dans icelles se 
 fait Vinde x expurgatorius, lequel s’augmente tous les ans ; et e’est la oil autrefois 
 ont ike censures les arrets de cette cour rendus contre Chastel, les ceuvres de M. 
 le President de Thou, les libertes de l’Eglise Gallicane, et les autres livres qui 
 concernent la conservation de la personne de nos rois et l’exercice de la justice 
 royal e.’ ” &c. — (Dupin, Droit Public Eccl&iastique, avertissement sur la 4eme 
 edition). 
 
 No evidence has been produced before their Lordships to 
 establish the very grave proposition that Her Majesty’s Roman 
 Catholic subjects in Lower Canada have consented, since the 
 cession, to be bound by such a rule as it is now sought to enforce, 
 which, in truth, involves the recognition of the authority of the 
 Inquisition, an authority never admitted but always repudiated by 
 the old law of France- It is not, therefore, necessary to enquire 
 whether since the passing of the 13 Geo. Ill, c. 83, which incor- 
 porates (s. 5) the 1st of Elizabeth, already mentioned, the Roman 
 Catholic subjects of the Queen could not legally consent to be 
 bound by such a rule. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, to which their Lordships have 
 come upon this difficult and important case is that Respondents 
 have failed to show that Guibord was, at the time of his death 1 
 under any such valid ecclesiastical sentence or censure as would, 
 according to the Quebec ritual, or any law binding upon Roman 
 Catholics in Canada, justify the denial of ecclesiastical sepulture 
 to his remains. 
 
54 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 It is, however, suggested that the denial took plaqe, in fact, by 
 the order of the Bishop or his Vicar-General ; that the Respond- 
 ents are bound to obey the orders of their ecclesiastical superior ; 
 and, therefore, that no mandamus ought to issue against them. 
 Their Lordships cannot accede to this* argument. They appre- 
 hend that it is a general rule of law in almost every system of 
 jurisprudence that an inferior officer can justify his act or omission 
 by the order of his superior only when that order has been regu- 
 larly issued by competent authority. 
 
 The argument would, in fact, amount to this : that even if it 
 were clearly established that Guibord was not disentitled by the 
 law of the Roman Catholic Church to ecclesiastical burial, never- 
 theless the mere order of the Bishop would be sufficient to justify 
 the Cure and “ Marguilliers ” in refusing to bury him in that part 
 of the parochial cemetery in which he ought, on this hypothesis, to 
 be interred; or, in other words, the Bishop, by his own absolute 
 power in any individual case, might dispense with the application 
 of the general ecclesiastical law, and prohibit upon any grounds, 
 revealed or not revealed, satisfactory to himself, the ecclesiastical 
 burial of any parishioner. There is no evidence before their 
 Lordships that the Roman Catholics of Lower Canada have con- 
 sented to be placed in such a condition. 
 
 Their Lordships do not think it necessary to consider whether, 
 if the parties and circumstances of the suit had been different, 
 they would or would not have had power to order the interment 
 of Guibord to be accompanied by the usual religious rites, because 
 the widow finally forewent this demand, and Counsel at their 
 Lordship’s bar have not asked for it, and also because the- Cure is 
 not before them in his individual capacity ; but they will humbly 
 advise Her Majesty that the Decrees of the Court of Queen’s 
 Bench and of the Court of Review be reversed. That the origi- 
 nal Decree of the Superior Court be varied, and that, instead of 
 the order made by that Court, it should be ordered that a per- 
 emptory writ of mandamus be issued, directed to “ Les Cure et 
 de l’CEuvre et Fabrique de Notre-Dame de Montreal,” command- 
 ing them, upon application being made to them by or on behalf 
 of Institut Canadien, and upon tender or payment to them of the 
 usual and accustomed fees, to prepare, or permit to be prepared, 
 a grave in that part of the cemetery in which the remains of 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 55 
 
 Roman Catholics, who receive ecclesiastical burial, are usually 
 interred, for the burial of the remains of the said Joseph Guibord ; 
 and that, upon such remains being brought to the said cemetery 
 for that purpose at a reasonable and proper time, they do bury 
 the said remains in the said part of the said cemetery, or permit 
 them to be buried there. And that the Defendants do pay the 
 Canadian Institute all the costs of the widow in all the lower 
 Courts, and of this Appeal, except such costs as were occasioned 
 by the plea of rccusatio judicis, which should be borne by the 
 Appellants. 
 
 Their Lonlslxips cannot conclude their Judgment without 
 expressing their regret that any conflict should* have arisen 
 between the ecclesiastical members of the Roman Catholic Church 
 in Montreal, and the lay members- belonging to the Canadian 
 Institute. 
 
 It has been their Lordships’ duty to determine the questions 
 submitted to them in accordance with what has appeared to them 
 to be the law of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada. 
 
 If, as was suggested, difficulties should arise by reason ot an 
 interment without religious ceremonies in the part of the ground 
 to which the mandamus applies, it will be in the power of the 
 ecclesiastical authorities to obviate them by permitting the per- 
 formance of such ceremonies as are sufficient for that purpose, 
 and their Lordships hope that the question of burial, with such 
 ceremonies, will be reconsidered by them, and further litigation 
 avoided. 
 
VIII. 
 
 DECREE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 On the 12th «f August, 1875, Mr Joseph Doutre, Q_C., received 
 from London the official Decree of the Privy Council, command- 
 ing the ecclesiastical authorities to bury the remains of Joseph 
 Guibord in tire manner therein set forth. The Decree was 
 accompanied by the following letter : — 
 
 (Copy). 
 
 Council Office, Whitehall, 
 23rd July, 1875. 
 
 Dame Henriette Brown, 
 
 Vi. 
 
 Les Cur£ &c., de Montreal from Canada 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I have the honor to transmit to you the Order of Her Majesty 
 in Council approving the Report of the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council on the above appeal. 
 
 This printed document, with the seal of the Privy Council, and 
 the signature of the Clerk of the Council, is the original Order of 
 Her Majesty, which must be filed in the Court from which the 
 appeal is brought in order to. give effect to the judgment. 
 
 Other printed copies of this order, not so authenticated, may 
 be obtained at the Privy Council office by the parties upon pay- 
 ment of five shillings for each copy. 
 
 I am. gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) H. REEVE, 
 Rg. P. L. 
 
 Messrs. Few & Co. 
 
 (L.S.) 
 
DECREE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 57 
 
 St flte (Hfltttit at Windsor drastic, 
 
 The 28th day of November, 1874. 
 
 PRESENT. 
 
 The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty. 
 
 Lord President. 
 
 Earl of Derby. 
 
 Mr. Secretary Cross. 
 
 ** WHEREAS, there was this day read at the Board a Report from the 
 ' ' Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated the 21st of November, 
 instant, in the words following, viz : — 
 
 “ YOUR MAJESTY having been pleased by your General Order in Council 
 of the 3rd November, 1871, to refer unto this Committee the matter of a humble 
 appeal between Dame Henriette Brown, appellant, and the Curate and Church- 
 wardens of the Parish of.Montreal, respondents, and likewise, a humble petition 
 of Dame Henriette Brown, of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, Canada, 
 setting forth that the appellant’s late husband, Joseph Guibord, died on the 18th 
 day of November, 1869, and burial in the Roman Catholic cemetery, at Montreal, 
 having been refused to his remains, the appellant applied by petition to the Superior 
 Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada, for a writ of mandamus, commanding 
 the Curate and Churchwardens of the Parish of Montreal, on payment by the 
 appellant of the usual fees, to inter or cause to be interred within eight days from 
 the judgment to be rendered, in the Roman Catholic Cemetery of Cotes des 
 Neiges, under their control and administration, the body of the said Joseph Guibord, 
 according to custom and law, and, further, to insert in the civil registers 
 kept by them, the certificate of the said interment of the said Joseph 
 Guibord ; that a writ was accordingly issued by order of a judge of 
 the said court, commanding the said Curate and Churchwardens of the said 
 Parish of Montreal, to perform the said acts and duties, or to show cause to the 
 contrary, which wri t, together with the appellant’s aforesaid petition, was duly 
 served upon the said Curate and Churchwardens of the said Parish of Montreal ; 
 that the said Curate and Churchwardens duly appeared and pleaded, and issue 
 having being joined and evidence taken, the whole case was heard upon the merits, 
 and on the .2nd day of May, in the year of Our Lord 1870, the Superior Court 
 gave judgment in favor of the appellant, and ordered a peremptory writ of 
 mandamus to issue, commanding the said Curate and Churchwardens to perform 
 the said acts and duties hereinbefore set forth ; that the said Curate and Church- 
 wardens inscribed the case for review, and on the IOth day of September, in the 
 year of Our Lord 1870, the Court gave judgment reversing the said judgment of 
 the 2 nd of May in the year of Our Lord 1870, and quashing the said writ of manda- 
 mus ; that the appellant duly appealed from the said judgment to the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench for Canada, Province of Quebec ; that on the 2nd day of December 
 
5 » 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 in the year of Our Lord 1870, the appellant presented petitions of recusation 
 against four of the judges of the said Court of Queen’s Bench ; that on the 9th 
 day of December, in the year of Our Lord 1870, the said Court of Queen’s Bench 
 gave judgment declaring the said petitions inadmissable ; that the four judges 
 against whom the said petitidhs of recusation were presented took part in this 
 judgment ; that the said Court of Queen’s Bench proceeded to hear the case on 
 the merits, and on the 7tlj day of September, in the year of Our Lord 1871, gave 
 judgment dismissing the appeal with costs ; that the four judges against whom 
 the petititions in recusation were presented took part in the said judgment ; that 
 the appellant feeling herself aggrieved by the said judgment of the Court of 
 Revision of the 10th day of September in the year of Our Lord 1870, and the said 
 judgments of the Court of Queen’s Bench of the 9th day of December in the year 
 of Our Lord 1870, and the 7th day of September in the year of Our Lord 1871, 
 applied to the said Court of Queen’s Bench for leave to appeal to Your Majesty in 
 Council, and the said Court of Queen’s Bench granted such leave upon the usual 
 terms, which have since been duly complied with, and humbly praying that \ our 
 Majesty in Council will be pleased to take her said appeal into consideration, and 
 that the said judgment of the Court of Revision of the 10th day of September in 
 the year of Our Lord 1870, and the said judgments of the Court of Queen’s Bench 
 of the 9th day of December in the year of Our Lord 1870, and the 7th day of 
 September in the year of Our Lord 1871, may be reversed, set aside, altered or 
 varied, or other relief in the premises . 
 
 “ AND YOUR MAJESTY having likewise been pleased by your General 
 Order in Council of the 27th November, 1872, to refer unto this Committee a 
 humble petition of the Institut Canadien, setting forth that the petitioners are a 
 body corporate, incorporated by a Canadian statute, 16 Viet., c. 261 ; that on the 
 24th November, 1864, Dame Henriette Brown, the late appellant, now deceased, 
 applied by petition to the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada, for 
 a writ of mandamus, commanding the Curate and Churchwardens of the Parish 
 of Montreal, on payment by the said Dame Henriette Brown of the usual fees, to 
 inter or cause to be interred within eight days from the judgment to be rendered, 
 in the Roman Catholic Cemetery of Cote des Neiges, under their control and 
 administration, the body ot Joseph Guibord, according to custom and law, and 
 further, to insert in the civil registers kept by them the certificate of the said 
 interment of the said Joseph Guibord ; that a writ was accordingly issued by order 
 of a judge of the said Court, commanding the said Curate and Churchwardens of 
 the said Parish of Montreal to perform the said acts and duties, or to show cause 
 to the contrary, which writ, together with the petition of the said Dame Henriette 
 Brown, was duly served upon the said Curate and Churchwardens ot the said 
 Parish of Montreal j that the said Curate and Churchwardens duly appeared and 
 pleaded, and issue having been joined and evidence taken, the whole case was 
 heard on the merits, and on the 2nd day of May, in the year of Our Lord 1870, 
 the Superior Court gave judgment in favor of the said Dame Henriette Brown, 
 and ordered a peremptory writ of mandamus to issue, commanding the said Curate 
 and Churchwardens to perform the said acts and duties hereinbefore set forth : 
 that the said Curate and Churchwardens inscribed the case for review, and on the 
 
DECREE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 59 
 
 10th day of September in the year of our Lord 1870, the Court gave judgment 
 reversing the said judgment of the 2nd day of May in the year of our Lord 1870, 
 and quashing the said writ of mandamus ; that Dame Henriette Brown duly 
 appealed from the said judgment to the Court of Queen’s Bench for Canada, 
 Province of Quebec ; that on the 2nd day of December, in the year of our Lord 
 1870, Dame Henriette Brown presented petitions of recusation against four of the 
 judges of the said Court of Queen’s Bench ; .that on the 9th day of December in 
 the year of Our Lord 1870, the said Court of Queen’s Bench gave judgment 
 declaring the said petitions inadmissable ; that the four judges against whom the 
 said petitions of recusation were presented took part in this judgment ; that the 
 said Court of Queen’s Bench proceeded to hear the case on the merits, and on the 
 7th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1871, gave judgment dismissing 
 the appeal with costs ; that the four judges against whom the petitions in recusa- 
 tion had been presented took part in the said judgment ; that the said Dame 
 Henriette Brown obtained leave to appeal to Your Majesty in Council, and on 
 the 12th June, 1872, a petition of appeal by the said Dame Henriette Brown 
 against the said judgments of 10th September, 1870, 9th December, 1870, and 7th 
 September, 1871, was duly filed, which appeal is now pending before this Com- 
 mittee ; that the said Dame Henriette Brown died, and was buried on the 2nd 
 April, 1873 ; that the said Same Henriette Brown, by her will dated 22nd 
 October, 1870, gave and bequeathed to the petitioners all her goods, movable and 
 immovable, lights, claims and actions, without any exceptions ; that at a meeting 
 of the Board of Directors of the Institut Canadien, held the 2nd April, 1873, it 
 was resolved to accept the said legacy, and to continue the said appeal hereinbe- 
 fore mentioned ; that on the 15th of April, 1873, probate of the said will, with 
 benefit of inventory, was granted to the petitioners by Mr. Justice Mackay, one of 
 the judges of the said Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada ; that 
 b y the Code of Procedure for the Province of Quebec, Canada, it is proved by 
 sections 436 and 437, that in case of the death of the party to a suit, his attorney 
 shall give notice thereof to the opposite party, and that the suit shall be suspended 
 until its continuance by those interested, and by section 438 that a suit may be 
 continued by the heirs or representatives of the deceased party, and humbly pray- 
 ing that Your Majesty in Council will grant leave to the petitioners to continue 
 the said appeal ; and, the Lords of this Committee, having taken the said humble 
 petition into consideration, and humbly reported to Your Majesty on the 20th 
 May, 1873, as their opinion, that the said Institut Canadien ought to be allowed 
 to continue the said appeal without prejudice to any question which may be raised 
 before their Lordships, on the hearing of this appeal, as to the competency of 
 the Institut Canadien, as universal legatee of the late appellant, Dame Henriette 
 Brown, to continue the appeal, and that on these terms the said appeal ought to 
 be revived accordingly, and to stand in the same plight and condition as it was in 
 at the time of the death of the said late appellant ; and Your Majesty having been 
 pleased, by and with the advice of Your Privy Council, to order by Your Majesty’s 
 Order in Council of the 26th June, 1873, that the said Institut Canadien be 
 allowed to continue the said appeal without prejudice to any question which may 
 be raised, on the hearing thereof, as to the competency of the Institut Canadien, 
 as universal legatee of the late appellant Dame Henriette Brown, to continue the 
 
6o 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GU1BORD CASE. 
 
 appeal, and that on these terms the appeal be, and the same thereby revived 
 accordingly, and should stand in the same plight and condition as it was in at the 
 time of the death of the said late appellant. The Lords of the Committee, in 
 obedience to Your Majesty’s said General Order of reference, have taken the 
 said humble petition and appeal into consideration, and having heard counsel on 
 behalf of the Institut Canadien, and also on behalf of the said Cure and Marguil- 
 liers of the Parish of Montreal, in Canada, their Lordships do this day agree 
 humbly to report to Your Majesty, as their opinion, that the decree or judgment 
 of the Court of Queen’s Bench for the Province of Quebec, of the 7th September, 
 1871, and the Decree of the Superior Court in Review of the 16th September, 
 1870, ought to be reversed ; and that the original Decree of the Superior Court of 
 the 2nd May, 1870, ought to be varied, and that, instead of the said last mention- 
 ed decree, it should be oidered that a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued, 
 directed to ‘ Les Cure et Marguilliers de L’CEuvre et Fabrique de Notre Dame 
 de Montreal,’ commanding them upon the application being made to them by or 
 on behalf of the Institut Canadien, and upon tender or payment to them of the 
 usual and accustomed fees, to prepare, or permit to be prepared, a grave in that 
 part of the cemetery in which the remains of Roman Catholics who receive ecclesi- 
 astical burial are usually interred, for the burial of the remains of the said Joseph 
 Guibord ; and that upon such remains being brought to the said cemetery for 
 that purpose, at a reasonable and proper time, they do bury the said remains in 
 the said part of the said cemetery, or permit them to be buried there ; and that 
 the respondents do pay to the Canadian Institute all costs of the widow in all the 
 lower courts, except such costs as were occasioned by the plea of recusatio judicisi 
 which should be borne by the present appellants. 
 
 “And in case Your Majesty should be pleased to approve of this Report, and 
 to order as is herein recommended, then their Lordships do direct that there be 
 paid by the respondents to the present appellants, the sum of one thousand and 
 seventy-nine pounds eighteen shillings and four pence, sterling, for the costs of 
 this appeal. ” 
 
 Hei* Majesty having taken the said report into consideration, 
 was pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to 
 approve thereof and to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the said 
 decree of the Court of Queen’s Bench for the Province of Quebec, 
 of the 7th September, 1871, and the decree of the Superior 
 Court in Review of the 10th September, 1870, be, and the same 
 are hereby, reversed with costs ; and Her Majesty is further 
 pleased to order that the original order of the said Superior Court 
 of the 2nd May, 1870, be varied, and that, instead of the said 
 order, it should be ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus 
 be issued, directed to “ Le Cur6 et Marguilliers de L’CEuvre et 
 Fabrique de Notre Dame de Montreal,” commanding them, upon 
 application being made to them by or on behalf of the Institut 
 
t)ECREE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 6 1 
 
 Canadien, and upon tender or payment to them of the usual and 
 accustomed fees, to prepare, or permit to be prepared, a grave in 
 that part of the cemetery in which the remains of Roman Catholics 
 who receive ecclesiastical burial are usually interred, for the 
 burial of the remains of the said Joseph Guibord, and that upon 
 such remains being brought to the said cemetery for that purpose, 
 at a reasonable and proper time, they do bury the said remains 
 in the said part of the said cemetery; or permit them to be buried 
 there ; and it is further ordered that the defendants do pay to the 
 Canadian Institute all the costs of the widow in all the lower 
 courts, except such costs as were occasioned by the plea of 
 recusatio judicis, which should be borne by the appellants ; and 
 likewise the sum of one thousand and seventy-nine pounds eight- 
 teen shillings and four pence sterling, for the cost of this appeal. 
 Whereof the Governor-General, Lieutenant-Governor, or Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the Dominion of Canada, for the time being, 
 and all other persons whom it may concern, are to take notice 
 and govern themselves accordingly. 
 
 (Signed), E. Harrison. 
 
VIII. 
 
 THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL ON 2nd SEPT. 
 
 Thursday, the second day of September, was fixed by the 
 officers of the Institute for the burial of Guibord, Mr. Doutre 
 having carefully taken all the necessary preliminary measures as 
 required by law 
 
 DIGGING THE GRAVE. 
 
 In the morning, Mr. A. Boisseau, Superintendent of l’lnstitut 
 Canadien, accompanied by a fellow-member, and armed with a 
 receipt signed by A. Choquet, officer of the Fabrique, and dated 
 i6th»May, 1873, conveying to the Guibord estate the lot 873 in 
 section N of the cemetery of Notre Dame des Neiges, proceeded 
 to the Catholic cemetery to oversee the digging of the grave. • 
 
 The lot is seven feet long by four feet wide at one end and 
 seven at the other. The body of Guibord’s wife occupied one 
 side of the lot, but the width at the narrower end being insuffi- 
 cient to allow the two coffins to lie side by side, it was decided 
 to superpose the coffin of Guibord over that of his wife. There 
 was not the least sign of any suspicious parties about, and only 
 here and there two or three small groups of individuals engaged 
 in burying their own friends. A Catholic Irishman, a laboring 
 man, came along, and after exchanging a few friendly words with 
 the workmen and the gentlemen present, went off again on his 
 business. A gentleman and lady, apparently Americans, drove 
 up and enquired if that was where Guibord was to be buried. 
 Upon being told that it was, they alighted and inspected the place 
 with much interest, and then drove away. During the progress 
 of the work two or three other laboring men employed in the 
 cemetery came up, one by one, and, after a little friendly conver- 
 sation, departed. Mr. Boisseau, finding that everything was 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL OF 2ND SEPTEMBER. 6 } 
 
 progressing satisfactorily, left the ground at half-past ten o’clock. 
 
 When the grave was dug, it was only a little over three feet 
 from the surface of the ground to the lid of the coffin of Madame 
 Guibord. A plain black cross stood at head, on which was 
 her name and the date of her death. 
 
 AT THE PROTESTANT CEMETERY. 
 
 At two o’clock some two or three hundred persons had assem- 
 bled in the Protestant Cemetery to witness the procession. Mr. 
 Doutre presented a written order for the delivery of the body, 
 to the trustees of the Mount Royal Cemetery, Messrs. M. H. 
 Gault, Wm. Turner, Andrew Robertson and George Macrae. 
 Among those present were a number of the members of l’lnstitut 
 Canadien and old friends of Guibord. The only relative of 
 Guibord present was Mrs, Rose, his wife’s sister. At ten minutes 
 past two o’clock, Mr. Spriggings, the guardian of the cemetery, 
 opened the door of the vault, and the coffin was lifted by three 
 laboring men, carried out and deposited upon a trestle. Mr. 
 Doutre then uncovered his head, so did also the other gentlemen 
 standing about, and asked Mr. Spriggings : “Is this the same 
 coffin that was brought here on the 20th of November, 1869 ?’’ 
 Mr. Spriggings answered, “ It is the same.” The coffin was then 
 placed upon the hearse, which was supplied by Mr. Richard 
 Seale, St. Antoine street, and was driven by his son. The hearse 
 was surmounted by a cross, and the British flag was thrown over 
 the coffin. The procession, comprising a dozen carriages, then 
 formed and left the cemetery at 2.25. The procession went round 
 the mountain at a smart trot and reached the gates of the Catholic 
 Cemetery at about 3 p.m. 
 
 AT THE CATHOLC CEMETERY. 
 
 When the procession reached the Catholic Cemetery, the gates 
 were found closed and barred, and a crowd of three or four hun- 
 dred men were collected, inside and outside the gate. They 
 belonged mostly to the class of laboring men, but were composed 
 largely of the rowdy element, being chiefly from the city, 
 though a good number of habitants were present in their shirt 
 sleeves from the rural parishes west of the mountain. The crowd 
 was almost exclusively composed of French-Canadians. As the 
 
6 4 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 hearse drove up to the gates, it was greeted by jeers and yells of 
 defiance from the mob- Mr. Doutre and his friends alighted, and 
 held a consultation as to what course to pursue, while the more 
 violent of the mob compelled the driver of the hearse to turn his 
 horses about and drive off the road. In the meantime the crowd 
 was increasing every minute ; friends and enemies of the Institute 
 were constantly arriving from the city. Many of the mob were 
 armed with pick handles, and they had also collected a pile of 
 small stones inside the gates. As they saw the indecision of Mr. 
 Doutre and his friends, they became bolder and more violent, 
 and the excitement on both sides was rapidly rising. Mr. Doutre 
 despatched bailiff Boucher to notify Mr. Deroche, the guardian of 
 the cemetery, that the procession was waiting to enter, and asking 
 him to cause the gates to be opened. That functionary replied 
 that he was altogether powerless to open the gates in opposition 
 to the mob. In about fifteen minutes after the hearse had been 
 compelled to turn about, several of the mob seized the horses by 
 the head, and, with kicks and blows, started them off on the oppo- 
 site side of the highway, about ' twenty rods from the gates, a 
 shower of stones following it in its retreat. At this moment the ex- 
 citement was most intense, and a single blow from either side would 
 have precipitated a collision. There were then nearly a thousand 
 men present, of whom about one-fourth were Liberal French Cana- 
 dians and English Protestants. These could easily have stormed 
 the gates and put the mob to flight, and it was only by the earnest 
 expostulations of Mr. Doutre, and a few others of the more 
 prudent, that the English, enraged at the insult offered to the flag, 
 and the French Liberals were dissuaded from precipitating a 
 general battle. The friends of law were very generally armed 
 with revolvers, and numbers of the rioters also had pistols, and if 
 a collision had occurred, many lives would inevitably have been 
 lost. Shortly after arriving at the gates, Mr. Doutre had sent off 
 a messenger to the city, informing the Mayor and Chief of Police 
 of the state of affairs. At four o’clock, as no word had been 
 received from the authorities, the officers of the Institute decided 
 to wait no longer, and they ordered the hearse to be driven back 
 through the city to the Protestant Cemetery, where the remains 
 of Guibord were once more placed in the vault. 
 
MAYOR HINGSTON. — (See page 142.) 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL ON 2ND SEPTEMBER. 
 
 65 
 
 INCIDENTS. 
 
 When the hearse finally moved off, the mob made a rush as if to 
 follow and attack it, but when they saw the friends of Guibord 
 and a number of Protestants close in behind, they desisted. Very 
 many of the crowd were semi-intoxicated, and were of the most 
 degraded class of ruffians. While the hearse was standing before 
 the gates they indulged in curses of Guibord and of the Institute. 
 “ We are guarding the Cemetery for the Fabrique. Take the 
 cursed Guibord away; he shall never be allowed to enter here.” 
 A few Irish Catholics were among them, but the great majority 
 were French-Canadians. The only fighting that took place 
 occurred after the hearse had left the ground. A big habitant in 
 his shirt sleeves, who had made himself conspicuous by his 
 violence and loud curses, and who had seized the horses by the 
 bridle, was struck on the head by one of the friends of Guibord 
 with a stone, which laid the flesh open. A few moments after 
 his assailant was attacked and beaten, but a crowd of friends 
 came to his assistance and chased two of those who assaulted him 
 over the hills, but without catching them. Several individuals 
 were also struck with stones, but none were seriously injured. 
 During the course of the afternoon, the grave dug for the recep- 
 tion of Guibord’s remains was filled up by three or four of the 
 rioters. 
 
 When word reached Mayor Hingston of the difficulty at the 
 gates of the Catholic Cemetery, he was taking part in a public 
 funeral to the late Chief Bertram, of the Fire Brigade. Himself 
 and Chief of Police Penton, accompanied by fifty men of the police 
 force, at once drove up to the Cemetery, which they reached at 
 about five o’clock. By this time the larger part of the mob had 
 dispersed, but those remaining immediately opened the gates and 
 cheered the two officials as they drove up. 
 
 EXCITEMENT IN THE CITY. 
 
 The news of the riot flew like wildfire through the Quebec 
 Suburbs and the Tanneries, and thousands expressed themselves 
 gratified. In the evening excited groups could be seen all about 
 the streets discussing the results of the riot. Some Catholics, 
 while saying they were well pleased that the gates were clos- 
 
66 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 ed upon the funeral, were sorry to hear that the mob had stoned 
 the hearse, which in their eyes was a fearfully sacrilegious act. 
 Mr. Doutre was denounced by many w ith fearful oaths and cur- 
 ses, and the feeling against him was singularly bitter. Among 
 Protestants there was but a single opinion expressed, and it was 
 that the law of the land would have to be enforced at any cost 
 and at all hazards, and many were the expressions of satisfaction 
 with which the news was received that the Prince of Wales Vol- 
 unteers had been ordered to hold themselves in readiness. They 
 rendezvoused at their headquarters on St. James street that 
 evening, ammunition' was supplied, and they are ready whenever 
 required. The corps of the Victoria Rifles were also held in 
 readiness for any emergency. 
 
 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH AUTHORITIES FOR THE RIOT. 
 
 The ecclesiastical authorities as such, must be held responsi- 
 ble for the riot and for the successful resistance to the execution 
 of the Royal Mandate. The populace were notoriously well 
 acquainted with the bitter feeling on the part of those authorities 
 against the Institute, and with the publicly expressed determina- 
 tion of the Rev. Mr. Rousselot to go to prison rather than obey 
 that mandate. The Nouveau Monde , the organ of the Bishop, and 
 the clerical press generally, had for weeks previously been filled 
 with bitter complaints of the persecution to which the Church 
 was being subjected, of the injustice of the decision of the Privy 
 Council, and of the violence which would be done to the religious 
 sentiment of Roman Catholics if the consecrated portion of the 
 cemetery should be desecrated by the inhumation of the remains 
 of an excommunicated man. The Bishop was well aware, as will 
 be shown presently, that resistance was intended, yet neither 
 from the pulpit nor from the clerical press was a single word 
 uttered to calm the popular excitement or to counsel abstention 
 from offering resistance to the burial. A single priest at the 
 Cemetery gates, when the procession arrived, could have quieted 
 the tumult and secured the peaceable execution of the order of 
 the Privy Council, yet not one was present dressed in the garb of 
 the clergy, or who could be recognized as such. 
 
 It was currently reported during the week of the burial that 
 the curds of several of the rural parishes west of Montreal had, 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL ON 2ND SEPTEMBER. 
 
 67 
 
 upon the preceding Sunday, preached upon the subject of the 
 burial, and' had exhorted their parishioners to attend and see that 
 the sacredness of the Cemetery was not profaned. 
 
 In an argument in the Superior Court on a rule nisi , which 
 took place three weeks subsequent to the riot, and of which men- 
 tion will be made, Mr. Jett£ stated, on behalf of the Seminary, 
 that they had informed the Institute on Sept. 1st, that the burial 
 would be permitted, and that the resistance offered to the burial was 
 made without their participation and against their will. On the same 
 occasion, Mr. Doutre stated that he was able to prove that a priest 
 clothed in his soutane had publicly used language to incite a crowd 
 to go there and keep the gates shut ; that Deroche, the guardian 
 of the Cemetery, had men organized to resist the entry of, the 
 procession, and that the workmen engaged in repairing 
 the Notre Dame Parish Church were given leave of absence 
 that afternoon and incited to go there for the same purpose. 
 
 THE ACTION OF the POLICE AUTHORITIES. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal communicated with 
 the Mayor, warning him that he feared a disturbance. The 
 following is the letter : — 
 
 Montreal, 2nd September, 1875. 
 
 Mr. Mayor : — 
 
 I believe it to be my duty to inform you that it was reported 
 to me at a late hour last night that the Irish intended uniting with 
 the French-Canadians, and to gather en masse to-day in front of the 
 gate of the Cemetery, in order to oppose the entry of the body of 
 the late J. Guibord. 
 
 It is needless for me to observe that this cannot be done with- 
 out most regrettable acts arising. In order to prevent them, the 
 police will be, without doubt, brought into service on the ground 
 at a proper time, so that there may be no reason to deplore dis- 
 orders which may arise should wise precautions not be taken. 
 
 I have the honor to be, truly, Mr. Mayor, with perfect con- 
 sideration, your very humble servant, 
 
 Ig. Montreal. 
 
 To His Honor the Mayor of Montreal 
 
 The Mayor thereupon saw the Chief of Police, who did not 
 
68 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 think there would be any disturbance, and thought the sending 
 out of a force was not necessary. It was only by the Mayor’s 
 orders that a force was despatched after the trouble was over. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE CLERICAL PRESS. 
 
 The Nouveau Monde, which has always claimed to represent the 
 opinions of the Bishop, in its report of the affair, took full part 
 with the crowd in the Cemetery. The report ironically employs 
 the expression “ Le Sieur Doutre,” when mentioning the counsel 
 for the Institut Canadien, and says that he had a very shapeless 
 (avachi ) and sheepish air on the occasion. Guibord’s remains 
 are styled Mr. Doutre’s mort (corpse), and the French Joe 
 Miller was laid under contribution to furnish language to describe 
 the affair which Mgr. Bourget’s organ evidently considered a 
 most entertaining comedy, especially as the laugh was all on its 
 own side, and “ Mr. Doutre had to go away with his mort, and 
 defer the profanation which he rejoiced in accomplishing.” Its 
 report concludes by stating that “ the demonstration provoked 
 by le Sieur Doutre was neither flattering for himself nor honor- 
 able for his mort.” In an editorial on the affair, the pious organ 
 called upon the authorities to secure the fruits of the victory 
 gained by the mob, and said : — 
 
 “ In presence of a fact in itself so serious and threatening to 
 the peace of this great city, and, therefore, of the country, it is 
 the duty of all wise men and friends of order to use all their 
 influence with the municipal authorities in the first place, and the 
 Government next, to have the body of Guibord remain where it 
 is now deposited. Whatever may be the legal question, the thing 
 is now on an entirely different footing. There are measures of 
 natural expediency which in imminent dangers know no other 
 laws than those of prudence. Mr. Doutre ought to be warned 
 that to desire actually to force the gates of the Cemetery and show 
 his mort to the public is simply to drive the people to revolt. To 
 persist in these moments of feverish excitement in invoking the 
 strict letter of the law is useless talk. The people in these mo- 
 ments of feverish excitement cannot always be led or kept within 
 the bounds that we should wish. • Let there, therefore, be enough 
 of wisdom to do or allow nothing of a nature to feed the flame 
 that threatens to spread, and let Guibord remain in the vault 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL OF IND SEPTEMBER. 69 
 
 whence he never should have departed. Peace demands this, at 
 least for the moment.” 
 
 The Minerve , which is ordinarily taken to represent the views 
 of the Seminary, commented upon the matter in a tone of ridicule. 
 It suggested that Guibord’s funeral had been postponed to wait 
 the arrival of “ a troop of Orangemen and fanatical Grits from 
 Upper Canada who will be organized to strengthen the hands of 
 our Rouges." It would betoken a crisis of no ordinary kind cer- 
 tainly to see elements ordinarily so hostile to each other leagued 
 for a common object. The “ clique Doutre Institut ” is blamed 
 for bringing about this extraordinary alliance, and it is warned 
 that it assumes a heavy responsibility in acting as it does. “ It 
 is, thanks to this handful of wretched Rouges and apostates, that 
 we are attacked in our religious sentiments, and are threatened 
 with a fresh hubbub, worse than what took place on Thursday. 
 These men without heart or patriotism do not fear to excite 
 Protestant and English fanaticism against their compatriots, and 
 to ally themselves even with the sects of Upper Canada to shed 
 the blood of their brethren. The Rouge party and the Institute 
 have dug their own grave in digging that of Guibord. These 
 hypocrites who make a show of reproving the Orangemen of 
 Upper Canada while allying themselves with them in persecuting 
 Riel and Lepine, and in accusing the Lower Canada Conservatives 
 of what they were doing themselves, are ready to-day to ask and 
 receive the help of these same Orangemen.” This silly story 
 seemed to have gained credence to a certain extent, and rumors 
 prevailed among French- Canadians that Toronto Orange leaders 
 were in town on Monday. 
 
 OPINION OF A FRENCH LIBREAL PAPER. 
 
 The Bien Public , while maintaining that the Guibord case was 
 one that should never have come before the courts, nevertheless, 
 declared that the decision of the latter must be upheld, and that 
 to oppose by force the execution of their judgment, above all of 
 a decree of the Privy Council, is an act of unpardonable folly. 
 “ What will be the result of the resistance to the interment of 
 Guibord ? Does anyone believe the authorities will give in ? Do 
 they not know that the English Government would send an army 
 if needful to have the judgment executed. Blood may be shed, 
 
7 ° 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 numerous arrests made, and severe punishment inflicted, but no 
 one can hinder Guibord’s remains from being interred.” 
 
 LETTER FROM REV. CURE ROUSSELOT. 
 
 The Mayor received the following letter on Saturday from 
 Rev. Cur6 Rousselot : 
 
 Office of the Works and Fabrique of Notre Dame, 
 
 Montreal, Sept. 3, 1875. 
 
 Mr. Mayor, 
 
 If credence must be given to the rumors circulated, we have 
 to fear that troubles of a more serious nature than those of yester- 
 day will take place in the cemetery when the body of poor 
 J. Guibord will again be presented there. It is impossible to fore- 
 see how far the exasperation of a nationality will go when it is 
 attacked in its religious feelings. What a misfortune it would be 
 if any blood were spilt ! See, therefore, Mr. Mayor, if in your 
 wisdom and your high position you can come to our assistance 
 and avert events which might result in a sequel not now to be 
 calculated for all our population, not only in this present instance, 
 but also in the future. 
 
 I beg leave, Mr. Mayor, to offer my profound respect, and to 
 ask you to believe me, 
 
 Yours humbly and devotedly, 
 
 V. Rousselot, Priest, SS. 
 
 Cur6 of Notre Dame. 
 
 THE bailiff’s RETURN. 
 
 Tuesday, Joseph Boucher, bailiff of the Superior Court and the 
 Court of Queen’s Bench, made his return of the peremptory writ 
 served upon the Cur6 and Fabrique commanding them to bury 
 the remains of the late Joseph Guibord. After stating the time, 
 place, &c., of serving the writs, the return goes on to say : — 
 
 I further certify, that on the second day of September instant, 
 the remains of the said late Joseph Guibord were brought to the 
 Roman Catholic Cemetery of Cote des Neiges, for their burial at 
 three o’clock in the afternoon, by the Institut Canadien, acting 
 through their President, Joseph Doutre, Esq., Q. C., and Alfred 
 Boisseau, their Secretary and Superintendent, but that the said 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL OF 2ND SEPTEMBER. 
 
 7 
 
 remains were not admitted into the said cemetery, the gates of the 
 same being closed and kept closed, notwithstanding my notifica- 
 tion to Benjamin Deroche, the guardian of the said cemetery, 
 and the only representative of the said Fabrique I found on the 
 premises, that the said remains were waiting to be admitted for 
 their burial, and finally that the remains of the said Joseph 
 Guibord were not interred in the said cemetery, but were recon- 
 veyed to the vaults of the Mount Royal Cemetery, where they 
 remain unburied. 
 
 (Signed) Joseph Boucher, 
 
 B. S. C., Court of Queen’s Bench. 
 
 GUARDING THE PROTESTANT CEMETERY. 
 
 Rumors having reached the trustees of the Protestant Ceme- 
 tery that an organized attack was likely to be made upon the 
 vaults to obtain possession of the body of Guibord, those gentle- 
 men applied to the authorities to place a guard over the vaults* 
 On Monday evening seven policemen and nine cemetery em- 
 ployees, under command of Sergeant Richardson, guarded the 
 vaults of the Mount Royal Cemetery. They were all armed with 
 Smith & Wesson navy revolvers and rifles. About midnight, an 
 alarm was given* for the noise of crackling brush on the mountain 
 slope, just back of the vaults, and the sound of voices speaking 
 French. The entire force was called out and disposed so as to 
 sweep the area in front of the vaults with a cross fire. Nothing 
 more was heard, however. During the following day several 
 squads of men of suspicious appearance were observed loitering 
 about the grounds, and Mr. Spriggings felt sure that they were spies. 
 On Tuesday evening Sergeant Richardson and his squad of six 
 policemen kept guard, as they did Monday night, assisted by the 
 employees of the cemetery. These were accompanied by Con- 
 stable Walton, of Outremont, and by four civilians from the city. 
 Two of the latter had a relative lying in the vault, and were nat- 
 urally filled with rigfjteous indignation that, a band of ruffians con- 
 templated the sacrilege of breaking open the vault where the re- 
 mains of the dead lay awaiting interment. Every man was 
 thoroughly armed, and ready for any emergency. Nothing un- 
 usual occurred until shortly after three o’clock in the morning, 
 
7 2 THE HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 when one of the sentinels came running in and said he saw three 
 lights moving about in the woods a short distance in rear of the 
 vault. The whole force immediately turned out, and stationed 
 themselves in a position where they could command the approaches 
 to the vault from both sides. Footsteps of persons cautiously 
 moving about were very plainly heard a short distance from the 
 vault, but the lights were concealed. At the same moment the 
 sound of crackling brush was heard in nearly the opposite direc* 
 tion beyond the front gate of the cemetery. After a few minutes 
 ^he sounds died away and nothing more was seen or heard until 
 morning. It was believed the footsteps were those of spies recon- 
 noitring, and as they were near enough to see the weapons of the 
 compact body of armed men, they did not venture an attack. For 
 several nights succeeding circumstances indicated that persons 
 were loitering in the woods about the cemetery, but no attack 
 was made upon the vaults. The guard was, however, kept on 
 duty until the final removal of the remains of Guibord. 
 
 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RIOTERS. 
 
 On the 3rd September, Mr. Doutre made an affidavit which 
 stated that the public peace had been threatened by the riot at 
 the Catholic Cemetery. This, with other documents, was sub- 
 mitted to two magistrates, which action the law required prior to 
 calling out the military force to keep the peace during the next 
 attempt at burial, the day for which, for prudential reasons, was 
 indefinitely postponed. Depositions were made against a num- 
 ber of the rioters who had made themselves the most prominent, 
 but the authorities took no steps to bring them to justice. On 
 the opening of the <g;iminal term of the Queen’s Bench, however, 
 Mr. Justice Ramsay alluded to the riot at the cemetery, and in- 
 structed the Grand Jury, of whom, as usual, one-half were French- 
 Canadians, to give it their attention. Indictments were according- 
 ly laid against fifteen of the rioters, and an equal number of wit- 
 nesses testified before the Grand Jury in support of the indict- 
 ments. Although the evidence was most decisive and explicit 
 against several of the accused who had committed overt acts of 
 violence, the Grand Jury refused to bring in any bill against 
 them. This ended all attempts to punish the authors of this most 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL OF 2ND SEPTEMBER. 
 
 73 
 
 daring and criminal defiance and resistance of the express Orderf 
 of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. 
 
 SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE FABRIQJJE. 
 
 On the 23rd September, Mr. Doutre applied to Mr. Justice 
 Mackay for the issue of a rule nisi for the Fabrique to show cause 
 why they should not be condemned to pay a fine not exceeding 
 $2,000 for their failure to inter, or allow to be interred, the remains 
 of Joseph Guibord, on the 2nd September. The rule was order- 
 ed to issue, returnable on the 27th of the same month. On that 
 day, before Mr. Justice Johnson, Mr. Jette for the Fabrique, 
 asked the Court to quash the rule, for the reason that it had not 
 been legally and regularly proved that the Fabrique had neglected 
 to obey the order, holding that the bailiff, in making such allega- 
 tions in his return, had transcended his functions. Moreover, he 
 claimed that without a formal return and certificate attached 
 thereto by defendants, the Court could not grant the applica- 
 tion of appellants. 
 
 Mr. Doutre replied that he was able to prove that the Fabrique 
 or its officers were at the bottom of the disturbance at the Ceme- 
 tery, and, therefore, they should be fined. As to the writ of man- 
 damus not having been returned by the party to whom it was 
 addressed, the objection was null, as the general custom of the 
 Courts in this country had not insisted upon such a thing. 
 
 His Honor asked if the gentlemen of the Fabrique had made 
 a return that t.hey had permitted the grave to be dug, would not 
 that have been a sufficient return. 
 
 Mr. Doutre answered that he supposed it would, but everyone 
 would have laughed at it. The excuses presented by Mr. Jette 
 were mere subterfuges, and if they were admitted, every writ that 
 would issue from this Court could be evaded and disobeyed, and 
 the Court would be powerless to enforce its oWn decrees. 
 
 On September 30th, Mr. Justice Johnson gave his judgment 
 on the application ordering the rule to be discharged. He held 
 that there had been no proper return of the writ before the Court, 
 and it was therefore impossible to judge whether it had been com- 
 plied with or not. The Court needed to have evidence that there 
 had been a refusal to comply with the writ, and no such evidence 
 
74 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORP CASE. 
 
 had been presented. The bailiffhad no authority to make a re- 
 turn, and the Court could not accept his statements of what had 
 occurred when his functions had ceased. It had not been proved 
 that the Fabrique had neglected to obey the writ, and, therefore? 
 they could not be fined. 
 
 On the 15th September, Mr. G. W. Stephens, a member of 
 the Montreal City Council, published the following letter in the 
 Witness : — 
 
 Sir, — After many of us had left the Council, supposing that 
 the adjournment was carried, the Mayor, in reply to Aid. Rivard, 
 made the explanation which you report. In my opinion it is a 
 very lame explanation. He had. by his own confession, a letter 
 from the Bishop, warning him that trouble was expected. This 
 letter he had at eleven o’clock of the morning of the day the 
 funeral was to take place. Instead of ordering the Chief of Police 
 to send a detachment of men to protect the funeral, he contented 
 himself with asking the Chief if he expected trouble, and was con- 
 tented with the answer that no trouble was expected. When 
 word was brought in at about half-past four the greatest alacrity 
 was shown in proceeding to the scene of disorder, but, as usual on 
 such occasions, the Mayor and police were too late. When the 
 Mayor arrived on the scene with his army they were just three 
 hours too late. If proper measures had been taken in the morn- 
 ing, the funeral would have taken place, and the city would be 
 spared its present disgrace. If no blood was shed, it was due to 
 the forbearance of the funeral party, and not to any wise precau- 
 tions of the Mayor. 
 
 The Mayor says, “ he was no mor^ required to go with the 
 police than any of the two hundred magistrates of the city.” 
 This must be sarcasm. He knows full well that none of the 
 other two hundred are entrusted with the honor of our city as its 
 chief magistrate. He says also that “ had circumstances been 
 different , we would have seen a partial disorganization of the 
 force.” This means that the police force would not have acted 
 if it had been called upon. This is true, for I saw an official 
 report that only twenty-three men of the force were to be relied 
 on in such an emergency. Now, it is well for the citizens to note 
 this fact, for it proves conclusively that in a religious riot the force 
 
THE ATTEMPTED BURIAL OF 2 ND SEPTEMBER. 75 
 
 would be useless. For this reason, the Mayor and Chief of Police 
 decided to face the crowd alone. There was no danger. The 
 crowd recognized a friend in His Worship, and were “ quiet in a 
 moment or two.’ ’ 
 
 Why was it that in the face of this “ disorganization” of the 
 Police force, the Mayor did not make any effort in the morning to 
 provide against any disturbance ? To put a very mild construction 
 upon the Mayor’s conduct, he has committed a very grave error 
 in not making the slightest provision for the maintenance of law 
 and order on this occasion. In the case of the anti-vaccination 
 riot the same neglect appears. He, along with the attorney, Mr- 
 Roy, was appointed to bring the rioters to justice. So far, no 
 practical result has been reached. If our city is now under the 
 disgrace of being ruled by mob-law, it is due to errors of this 
 kind. 
 
 The Mayor concludes his speech by saying that “ when he 
 undertook to be Mayor he did not undertake the task of keeping 
 all the surrounding municipalities in order.” By section 9 of the 
 charter the Mayor is an ex-officio Justice of the Peace for the city 
 and district of Montreal. Our police and firemen are continu- 
 ally doing duty outside our limits. It is only when a peaceful 
 funeral is in question that this new theory is promulgated. One 
 thing is certain, however, that if more vigor is not infused into the 
 office of Chief Magistrate the city will descend deeper into the 
 mire. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 G. W- Stephens. 
 
IX. 
 
 PASTORAL LETTER OF THE BISHOP OF 
 
 MONTREAL. 
 
 HE THREATENS TO CURSE GUIBORD’s GRAVE. 
 
 Oa the 8th of September, Bishop Bourget published the 
 following pastoral letter in relation to the burial of Guibord in 
 consecrated ground. 
 
 CONCERNING THE ECCLESIASTICAL BURIAL DEMANDED FOR AN 
 UNFORTUNATE CATHOLIC DEAD IN THE DISGRACE 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Ignace Bourget, by the grace of God, and the Apostolic See, 
 Bishop of Montreal, etc. 
 
 To the secular and regular clergy , to the religious commu- 
 nities , and to all the faithful of our diocese , the grace and 
 blessing of our Lord : 
 
 It is for us, our very dear brethren, a necessity as well as a 
 duty to raise the voice to-day to endeavor to appease a certain 
 agitation which has taken hold of minds, and which, fermenting 
 from day to day, may lead us to some fatal catastrophe. We 
 have not to recall to you the lamentable fact which has caused to 
 you so bitter a grief, for it is so well known to each of you and so 
 strongly engraved with all its unhappy circumstances, that it will 
 transmit itself without doubt to the latest posterity. For that 
 which hath roused you up in such large numbers is the fear that 
 your Cemetery, which you justly venerate as a holy place, might 
 be profaned by the burial of a man dead in the disgrace and under 
 the anathema of the Church. This tidings rightly alarmed the 
 religious feeling of the Catholic population, and shocked the 
 multitudes ; therefore was it why one felt himself obliged to a pub- 
 
PASTORAL OP BISHOP BOURGET. 
 
 n 
 
 lie but peaceable demonstration, to prevent the profanation of a 
 sacred place, where repose in peace our religious ancestors wait- 
 ing the great day of the resurrection. By this spontaneous demon- 
 stration, to which your heart alone has inspired you, you intend- 
 ed to testify to your religious feeling for the holy place which the 
 Church has blessed, because after your decease your bodies -will 
 be laid there beside those of your fathers, to peaceably await the 
 sound of the terrible trumpet which will awake the human race 
 from the slumber of death and bring forth all men from the dust 
 of the tomb. We have had, our very dear brethren, to examine 
 with the most scrupulous care the religious conviction which 
 attaches us to the cemetery as to a holy place, to a consecrated 
 ground and to a sacred field, where will be placed the good 
 children of the Church, there to await the arrival of the Sovereign 
 Judge, while their ashes mingle with those of the saints, who like 
 them have lived and are dead in the peace of the Church. We 
 have had at the same time to admire the calm and moderate con- 
 duct which you manifested at a moment when everything induced 
 fear lest one might come to blows, and lest blood might have been 
 shed, which would have been considered by all parties as a very 
 great calamity. For our part we would have supremely regretted 
 this calamitous conflict, for many reasons which you can, our very 
 dear brethren, divine and appreciate. Let it be sufficient for us 
 to remark to you that this effusion of blood would have been a 
 fresh profanation of the holy place, although we might have taken 
 measures, so far at least as was in our power, to avoid this calam- 
 ity ; but if, on the one hand, we have managed all things so that 
 the public peace Was not troubled, we were, on the other, occupied 
 with means to be taken so that the honor of the Holy Church 
 might be respected, and that the holy place should not be profan- 
 ed. This was to declare, in virtue of the divine power which we 
 exercise in the name of the Pastor of pastors, that the place where 
 the body of this rebellious child of the Church would be deposited 
 should be made separate from the rest of the consecrated ceme- 
 tery, so that it would only be a profane place. For we do not 
 need here to prove to you that in the solemn act of our consecra- 
 tion to God, full power was given us to bind and to loose, to bless 
 and to curse, to consecrate persons, places, and temples^ and to 
 interdict them, to separate from the body of the Church the mem- 
 
78 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 bers who dishonor and outrage her. to hand over to Satan those 
 who hear not the Church, in order that they may henceforth be 
 considered as pagans and publicans, so long as they return not to 
 God by sincere penitence. It is upon these incontestible and un- 
 contested principles of this divine authority, that, desiring to 
 maintain in all its integrity the discipline of the Church concern- 
 ing the burial of its children, and to prevent, at the same time, 
 all disorder for the future, we declare by these presents, in order 
 that no one may be able to plead ignorance, that the part of the 
 Cemetery where the body of the late Joseph Guibord should be 
 interred, if ever after this it is buried there in any manner what- 
 ever, will be undone and will ipso facto remain interdicted and 
 separated from the rest of the Cemetery. 
 
 Such is, our very dear brethren, the declaration we have to 
 make to you, in order that you may not have to fear that in the 
 present case your Cemetery can lose its benediction, or that the 
 sacred right which the Church has over places which she sancti- 
 fies and blesses, can be sacrificed and trodden .under foot ; it 
 follows from this that there remains no pretext for any person to 
 offer violent opposition to the body of. this unfortunate brother 
 being deposited in any part whatever of the Cemetery, since by 
 the same this part will become interdict and separated from the 
 holy place. 
 
 Be the present pastoral letter read from the pulpit of all the 
 churches of this city, and of its environs, in which the public office 
 is celebrated, the first Sunday after its reception. 
 
 Given at Montreal under our hand and seal and the counter- 
 signature of our Secretary, the eighth day of the month of Sep- 
 tember, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. 
 
 (Signed,) Ig., Ev. de Montreal. 
 J. O. Pare, Chan. Secretaire. 
 
 THE CURSE LATERAL OR THE CURSE PERPENDICULAR. 
 
 The day succeeding the publication of the above pastoral, the 
 following letter, which has since been copied in papers all over the 
 world and was read with much interest, was published in the 
 Montreal Witness : 
 
 Dear Sir, — In the most extraordinary letter of the Roman 
 Catholic Bishop of Montreal, published in this morning’s Gazette 
 the Rev. prelate states that if Guibord’s body had been buried 
 
PASTORAL OF BISHOP BOURGET. 
 
 79 
 
 “ measures would have been taken to interdict the place where it 
 lay,” making it “a cursed spot to be held in execration;” he 
 also implies that if the body is finally buried in the Guibord lot, 
 the ecclesiastical curses will be let loose, and that the spot at 
 present consecrated, will wilt and wane and wither under the 
 awful malediction of an insulted bishop. 
 
 Now I am really anxious about poor Mrs. Guibord, the wife 
 of the late printer. Mrs. Guibord died a Catholic, was willingly 
 buried in Catholic soil, is in no way entitled to be cursed, or rest 
 in cursed ground. She, poor woman, did not belong to “ the In- 
 stitut,” or merit in any way the terrible doom of lying in an exe- 
 crated grave. I do not know whether in dying she received ex- 
 treme unction, but it is highly probable she did ; anyway, she was 
 buried in consecrated ground as a Catholic woman should be 
 buried. 
 
 Now, as I said before, I am really anxious about Mrs. Guibord. 
 If Guibord’s grave deserves to be cursed, I suppose it must be 
 cursed ; but surely poor Mrs. G. is not to'suffer for her husband’s 
 faults ! How is this curse going to work ? Will it be a perpen- 
 dicular curse, working down, or a lateral curse, working sideways. 
 If lateral well and good ; if perpendicular I think it manifestly 
 unjust and unchristian. 
 
 A lateral curse three feet deep might just cover Guibord. It 
 might commence at the right hand side of the coffin, close to the 
 lid, work down three feet, and then work out over, and under, and 
 through the coffin, say ten feet on the coffin’s left side. This 
 kind of a curse would surely meet the wants of the case without 
 interfering with the vested rights of other corpses. There would, 
 I think, be plenty of room for the curse to work, or if it should 
 be found that it was cramped, why the Bishop might increase the 
 area by cursing the top soil (three feet deep) on the left side of 
 the coffin, as many more feet as to him seemed necessary for the 
 just demand of the malediction. 
 
 Not being well posted, however, on the way in which curses 
 work, this lateral idea may, for all I know, be out of the question; 
 but anything seems better than the perpendicular curse. Why a 
 perpendicular curse working down would curse poor Mrs. Guibord, 
 who would be under Guibord ! It would not only work horrors 
 among the few poor bones of the printer, but it would damn and 
 
8 0 HISTORY OP THE GUIBORD CASK. 
 
 anathematize his poor wife, who was buried as all good Catholics 
 are buried, and never did anything calling for bell, book, or can- 
 dle. Possibly the Bishop might curse three feet down, then 
 leave his blessing on the next three feet, and, then, curse on as 
 deep as he liked ; but I question whether he would be able to do 
 this. Of course, episcopal power is very great, but it seems to 
 me that a curse once let loose must go either straight on or straight 
 down without let or hindrance. 
 
 The fact is a perpendicular curse would suit nobody. It 
 would not suit the Bishop, for he does not surely want to curse a 
 consecrated grave, filled by a poor woman who certainly has done 
 nothing against the Church since she died. If Mrs. Guibord died 
 a good Catholic entitled to Christian burial, she cannot since have 
 become a bad one, and forfeited her right to rest in holy ground. 
 Besides the Bishop does not want to make Mrs. Guibord uncom- 
 fortable; he only wants to make her husband uncomfortable. 
 
 Then, again, the perpendicular curse would not suit the Roman 
 Catholic public. Suppose the Bishop sees right to curse several 
 other heretics whose dead have been holy dead. Are the holy 
 dead to lie under a curse, buried by the Church, yet blasted and 
 banned by the Church ? 
 
 And surely the perpendicular curse would not cause outsiders 
 to look with reverence or awe on the Church of Rome. Better 
 not curse at all than give way to blundering curses like these. 
 Better to bury Guibord than to have to,curse the heretic husband 
 at the expense of the orthodox wife. “ Fair play is a jewel,” and 
 outsiders always expect to see it whether in a cricket field or in a 
 Church. 
 
 I close with a wish for more light. Is the coming curse to be 
 lateral or perpendicular ? Will orthodox Mrs. Guibord lie in an 
 execrated spot because heretic Mr. Guibord deserves to be cursed ? 
 These are important questions. Yours faithfully, 
 
 An Enquirer. 
 
 Montreal , 9th Sept., 1875. 
 
 QUEBEC BISHOPS’ PASTORAL. 
 
 At a convention of the Quebec Bishops, held in Quebec in 
 October, to decide certain questions, amongst which was that of 
 the Guibord burial, the following opinion was adopted : — “ Un- 
 
PASTORAL OF BISHOP BOURGET. 8 1 
 
 questionably ecclesiastical burial is not as holy as the sacraments, 
 but it does not the less appertain wholly and solely to the judg- 
 ment of the Church. We mean ecclesiastical burial such as de- 
 fined and regulated by canon law. That is to say, not only the 
 prayers and religious rites which are used at funerals, but also 
 the spot sanctified and specially consecrated by the prayers and 
 blessings of the Church. It may be said that the deprivation of 
 the honors of ecclesiastical burial carries with it degradation and 
 infamy, and that thus considered it falls within the jurisdiction 
 of the civil authority charged to protect the honor of citizens. 
 We answer that the dishonor and infamy consist rather in the 
 revolt of a child against his mother ; and that nothing can wash 
 away the stain of a grave disobedience which perseveres until 
 death. * * * But, q <} ear iy beloved brethren, with 
 
 grief we must proclaim it, an affair too sadly famous proves to us 
 that the Catholic Church in Canada is threatened in her liberty 
 and her most sacred rights, and the crowning of our affliction is 
 that the Church can but exclaim with the prophet, 1 1 have 
 brought up children and exalted them, but they have despised 
 me.’ (Isaiah i. 2.) The first authors of this outrage have been 
 brought up on the knees of a Catholic mother. In their infancy 
 they have partaken of the divine banquet. They have received 
 the indelible character of confirmation, and yet to-day in spite of 
 the revolt they call themselves Catholics that they may force the 
 entrance of a cemetery consecrated by the prayers of the Church, 
 and by her designed for the burial of her faithful children. To 
 palliate this criminal usurpation they have invoked the pretended 
 Gallican Liberties, as if Catholic unity founded by Jesus Christ 
 on the supreme authority of Peter and his successors were but an 
 empty name. What authority is that which, by invoking his 
 liberties, the subject can escape ? What prince, what republic, 
 would acknowledge such a principle if appealed to by a Province, 
 notwithstanding the oft-repeated declarations of the constitution 
 and the supreme tribunals of the State ? ” 
 
 ANOTHER PASTORAL FROM MGR. BOURGET. 
 
 On October 17th, another pastoral from Bisliop Bourget in 
 reference to the burial was read in the Roman Catholic churches 
 of the city. In its commencement it referred to the excitement 
 
8z 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GOTBOKD CASE. 
 
 made “ around the body of a certain man as to whose name we 
 should like to be silent,” and declares its purpose to be to give 
 explanations in regard to “ facts wrongly reported ” and prin- 
 ciples wrongly represented. “The Holiness of the Catholic 
 cemetery ” is the subject first treated of, and the Bishop argues 
 that everything devoted to the use of the Church is holy, its sac- 
 raments, its doctrines, its temples and its cemeteries. The latter 
 are especially consecrated to receive the “ bodies of those who 
 die in peace with the Church, and God ratifies in heaven all the 
 benedictions made by the priests on earth.” “This benediction 
 is accompanied with ceremonies mysterious and full of grace.” 
 The cemetery is “ sprinkled all over with sanctifying and holy 
 water.” It has a 'cross planted in it, “ specially blessed and 
 incensed,” to protect the remains of the faithful sleeping under 
 its shadows from “ incursions of the devil ” and to secure “ that 
 their souls be admitted into the company of the angels of peace.” 
 This setting apart of a spot where her children may rest in peace 
 till the resurrection is dwelt on as a touching instance of the ten- 
 derness of “ Holy Mother Church.” This consecration of ceme- 
 teries is declared to be of great’antiquity, and the Catacombs of 
 Rome are appealed to for- proof of how the early Christians took 
 care not to be buried “pell-mell with infidels, heretics and 
 schismatics.” This branch of the pastoral, which contains much 
 pious reflection and ejaculation, concludes as follows : — 
 
 “ Hence it is easy to conclude that one could not without regret 
 behold in the cemeteries the bodies of those who during their 
 life might have scandalized their brethren and afflicted religion 
 by their impieties, their extortions, their debauches, by their 
 negligence to attend the holy ordinances and receive the sacra- 
 ments which give eternal life, and should have died without giv- 
 ing signs of repentance or penitence.” 
 
 The second head of the pastoral treats of the “ justice of the 
 decision given by the Church against the said Joseph Guibord,” 
 and is a summary of the pleas advanced on behalf of the Church 
 in course of the litigation in this case. It quotes the Roman 
 Ritual as to the classes to whom ecclesiastical burial is to be 
 denied ; claims that the Church enforces its provisions impartially . 
 against great and small, rich and poor, and goes into the history 
 of the Institut Canadien and of Guibord’s connection therewith 
 
ANOTHER PASTORAL FROM MGR. BQURGET. 
 
 83 
 
 to show that he was righteously denied such interment. It is 
 true, the Bishop says, he had not been warned and denounced 
 by name, “ because he was not of the rank of those excommuni- 
 cated persons whom it would have been necessary to flee from 
 and shun during his existence, it not being allowed to have any 
 relations with him in the business of life.” Nevertheless, the 
 Bishop maintains that he was righteously under the sentence of 
 major excommunication directed against all who belonged to the 
 Institut Canadien. 
 
 The decision of the Privy Council is next reviewed. “ Far 
 from us, our very dear brethren,” says the Bishop, “ is the thought 
 of appealing to public opinion from the decision of Her Majesty’s 
 Privy Council in this unfortunate affair. This, we understand 
 perfectly, is neither the time nor the place therefor.” Mgr. then 
 refers back to his pastoral of 8th September last as a declaration 
 of his policy in this matter, and where, it will be recollected, he 
 announced his intention of cursing the grave. “ We have not 
 desired on this occasion to avail ourselves of the rigor used by the 
 ecclesiastical authority shortly after the conquest, in causing to 
 be disinterred and thrown out- of the cemetery the bodies of 
 three soldiers that had been buried there against the rules of the 
 Church.” The Bishop thus takes credit for acting very gener- 
 ously in this Guibord affair. By cursing the grave and thus 
 separating it from the rest of the consecrated ground, he says, 
 “ Without entering into conflict with authority we have been able 
 to safeguard the liberty of the Church.” He then goes on to 
 quote from the recent pastoral issued by the Council of Bishops 
 in this Province the part setting forth the claims of the Church 
 of Rome to supremacy over the State, and those of its clergy and 
 ecclesiastics to immunity from civil process, and reiterates rather 
 tiresomely their right to act towards Guibord as has been done. 
 In regard to the Gallican Liberties which have been appealed to 
 on Guibord’s behalf, the Bishop says they are not considered even 
 in France but as real servitudes wresting from the Church her 
 lawful liberties, and cannot be put forth to authorize in Canada 
 an “ encroachment upon the rights of the Holy Church.” The 
 Bishop proceeds : — “ Allow us, in conclusion, to observe to you, 
 our very dear brethren, that this decision might not have been 
 given if the noble Lords who compose the Privy Council and 
 
84 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 who advised Her Majesty could have been able to assure 
 themselves that it would have tended to strangely grieve the 
 bishops of this country, whose loyalty has never been denied ; to 
 wound the religidus feeling of a devoted people who have on all 
 occasions joined fidelity to their Sovereign with attachment to 
 their religion ; to cause Catholics in this country to fear that it 
 is wished to deprive them of their religious liberty ; to cast into 
 this; province a brand of discord which it might be very difficult 
 to extinguish ; and to excite between citizens of different races 
 and religions antipathies and hatreds that might have very serious 
 results. O may God, our very dear brethren, preserve us from 
 these evils, and, to obtain grace from Him, let us address by fer- 
 vent prayers the immaculate Virgin, who, in her pure and spotless 
 conception, has crushed the head of the venomous serpent that 
 with its poisoned breath, fills the whole world with the most 
 damnable errors. Let us implore the powerful succor of this 
 august mother of God, whose compassionate heart is always open 
 to the cries of the poorest and most wretched.” 
 
X. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ARCH 
 BISHOP LYNCH AND 
 MR. DOUTRE. 
 
 The three following letters were published in the Toronto 
 Globe : — 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOP’S FIRST LETTER. 
 
 Sir, — Would you permit me to say a word in the Guibord 
 case ? It may occur in Toronto at some future time a branch of 
 a condemned tree might be forced to take root in our midst, and 
 we might, perhaps, prevent mischief by explaining in anticipation 
 what we should do in such a contingency. 
 
 But first let me cite a case in point. Suppose the Fenian 
 organization, properly so-called, were established here and put 
 under the ban of the Church, as is the Institut Canadien; and 
 suppose one of the members at his last moments refused to 
 renounce the society and accepted in preference to die without 
 the Sacraments of the Church, would the Privy Council of the 
 Queen absolve the memory of the man, and force us to give him 
 ecclesiastical burial ? I presume not ; nor would the Protestants, 
 especially the Orangemen, willingly acquiesce in what they would 
 consider an unjust decree of a Catholic Sovereign, in a like case 
 where they would be the aggrieved. 
 
 I know the mind of our Protestant friends, and give them 
 credit for desiring to know both sides of the question. They, 
 perhaps, would like to know what is really the Institut Canadien, 
 about which there is so much trouble. The French-Canadian,ir. 
 coming under British rule, gained one immense advantage — he 
 was cut off from revolutionary France at a time when infidelity 
 commenced to permeate and ruin all classes, especially the lower, 
 of French society; and hence the descendants of the French 
 
86 
 
 HISTORY OP THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 immigrants grew up a religious and loyal people. But, in the 
 course of time, well-to-do Canadians revisited France, and brought 
 back the seeds of irreligion and too much independence. To 
 foster and perpetuate these evil plants they formed a society 
 called the Institut Canadien. and filled their library with books 
 fetid with the most rampant infidelity, such as was destroying the 
 faith and morality of France. The Bishop of Montreal, as a good 
 pastor of souls, as a good father, who would not place bad books 
 in the hands of his children, wished to have these books removed, 
 or, at least, locked up, so that all comers would not have access 
 to them ; and the Bishop further required that a priest of his ap- 
 pointment should watch over the morality of the library and the 
 members of the Institut. - Was this beyond the faculties of a 
 Bishop of the Catholic Church in his treatment of those who pro- 
 fessed to owe him obedience, and who wished to receive from him 
 the Sacraments? No sane man would say that it was. The 
 Institut Canadien would not comply with the reasonable demands 
 of the Bishop, consequently His Lordship was obliged to warn 
 them if they continued to disobey he would be obliged to cut 
 them off from communion with the Church. The Institut Cana- 
 dien retained its library and continued its opposition, and were 
 consequently proscribed. The evil ceased to become greater 
 because good Catholics no longer join the Society. 
 
 I ask any of our Protestant friends of the various religious 
 communities, would you not, if the case were yours, refuse com- 
 munion to the man who would disobey the formal injunction of 
 your Synod or Conference ? 
 
 But now comes the question respecting the bodies of excom- 
 municated persons after death. But not wishing to intrude too 
 much on your space, I propose, if you permit me, to continue 
 these remarks in another communication in your issue of to- 
 morrow. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 t John Joseph Lynch, 
 
 Archbishop of Toronto. 
 
 Si. Michael's Palace , Sept. 9th, 1875. 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOP’S SECOND LETTER. 
 
 Sir, — There is a quasi consent that each religious community 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 87 
 
 should have a cemetery specially consecrated or set apart for the 
 burial of the bodies of the members who died in communion with 
 them, and it would be considered an outrage for the State to 
 force them to bury with religious ceremonies the body of one of 
 their members who, whilst he was alive, was excommunicated 
 from their Church. 
 
 But the State steps in and says, this man bought a lot in the 
 cemetery, and it can now be used for his burial. 
 
 But the lot was sold with this condition expressed or under- 
 stood, for the burial of those only who died in communion with 
 the Church, so that, like any other sale of a lot under condition, 
 when that condition is wanting the land is forfeited. The 
 Catholic Church provides for the burial of those who die out of 
 her fold, for in every cemetery a place is set apart for the burial 
 of such persons. 
 
 It appears to me that the State, in the case of Guibord, who 
 died out of the pale of the Church, is manifestly interfering in 
 matters not of its competency, and consequently need not be 
 obeyed, for conscience' sake; but this interference is rather to be 
 tolerated to avoid a greater evil. If the Guibord case happened 
 here I would hold myself neutral ; the State could use its power 
 of force and bury the body in our consecrated cemetery, but cer- 
 tainly not with any active assistance on our part. I would then 
 order the grave or plot to be fenced in, and I would then proceed 
 to re-consecrate the rest of the cemetery. 
 
 I might be asked, Do we think the ashes of a notorious sinner 
 who died unrepentant would injure the souls or bodies of those 
 whose bones lay in the cemetery? I would answer no — nor 
 would the bones of mad dogs or other unclean animals contami- 
 nate the cemetery. This is a subject to which we may return 
 again But such would shock all sense of humanity and public 
 decency ; then why make any trouble about the Guibord case ? 
 
 We don’t make the trouble; the trouble is caused by the State 
 forcing the body of an excommunicated man into consecrated 
 ground not under the direct jurisdiction of the State. The clergy 
 hold themselves neutral, as they should. The State is strong 
 enough to force its enactments, even when they are unjust. If 
 the State think well to shoot down the people, it is the State s 
 own business ; and if the people resist and expose themselves to 
 
88 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GtJIBORD CASE. 
 
 be shot, that is their own business too; if the clergy wish to help 
 the State, and advise the people to keep quiet, that is their own 
 business also. The Church tolerates without resistance at 
 present the robbery and spoliation of its most sacred property, as 
 witness the persecution in Italy and Germany, but then she does 
 not help her enemies in their spoliation. 
 
 The Catholics of Montreal feel outraged at having their cem- 
 etery about to be desecrated by the introduction of the body of 
 an excommunicated man. I don’t wonder at it, but I would say 
 to them, don’t expose your lives in resisting the State; if you are 
 commanded to renounce your faith, then suffer martyrdom rather 
 than obey imperial mandates, as the early Christians did. 
 
 You ask again, “Why consecrate cemeteries?” This is a 
 question that all religious bodies may answer as well as myself. 
 Are we disposed to sympathize with the irreligious father who, 
 speaking over the body of his own son, gloried that he was un- 
 baptized, and that his body was now some use to humanity, inas- 
 much as it fertilized the earth — dung to dung ? 
 
 Our idea of the sanctity that hallows the body after death is 
 based upon the words of St. Paul, “ Know ye not that your mem- 
 bers are temples of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you 
 have from God, and you are not your own. For you are bought 
 with a great price ; glorify and hear God in your body.” (i Cor., 
 vi., 19, 20.) And again, “ If any man violate the temple of God, 
 him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which you 
 are.” (1 Cor., iii., 17.) And again, “ I know that my Redeemer 
 liveth, and at the last day I shall rise out of the earth and I shall 
 be clothed again in my skin and in my flesh I shall see God.” 
 (Job 19.) 
 
 Hence the bodies of the just will be joined to their glorified 
 souls and enjoy the beatific vision of God ; hence our reverence 
 for the bodies of the dead ; hence the vice of impurity is so exe- 
 crable to God. 
 
 I am, sir, with much consideration, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 f John Joseph Lynch, 
 
 Archbishop of Toronto. 
 
 Toronto , Sept. io, 1875. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 89 
 
 MR. DOUTRE’S REPLY. 
 
 SiR) From the high tone of some of the public utterances of 
 His Grace the Archbishop of Toronto, I have conceived, in com- 
 mon with others, a deep feeling of respect for his talents and his 
 sincerity of purpose. His letters on this Guibord case, notwith- 
 standing, or I should say on account of, the errors of fact they 
 contain, are not of a character to diminish that respect. His 
 Grace, knowing evidently nothing of the main facts, and having 
 to explain to himself and to the public a conflict which has put 
 the whole American Continent in commotion, imagined every- 
 thing which could make a plausible defence of his Montreal 
 colleague’s position. When he learns that his facts are fictitious 
 and imaginary, it will hardly be necessary to discuss his conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 The parallel attempted to be found between the members of 
 the Institut Canadien and the Fenians has no other merit than 
 being a piece of diplomacy to prepare the ears of his audience. 
 However, I have no objection to accept the parallel in its entire 
 bearing, provided it be treated from a Lower Canada standpoint. 
 The Catholic Church in Lower Canada partakes of the character 
 of an Established Church. The laity constitutes, in each parish, 
 a corporate body as regards the properties of churches, cemeteries, 
 and parsonages. These properties belong to the parishioners, 
 and not to the bishop or the cure. The cures have the right to 
 recover, before the Courts, the tithes from the parishioners. The 
 Church, composed of the cure and laity, has the right to collect 
 through processes of law any amount of taxation for the building 
 of churches, parsonages, and the purchase of burial grounds, and 
 the repairs and maintenance of the whole. These things do not 
 exist in Ontario. There everything is voluntary, and I am not 
 prepared to express an opinion on the respective rights and duties 
 of the clergy and laity. But the condition of things in Quebec 
 has constituted clear and well-defined rights and duties for the 
 two bodies. Decisions from the highest Court in Quebec, a 
 Court uniformly composed of a majority of Catholic Judges, have 
 laid down as a rule formally approved of by the Church, until the 
 recent changes in the Constitution of the Catholic Church, that 
 the old ecclesiastical law of France was still the ecclesiastical law 
 
go 
 
 HISTORY OP THE GUI BOR D CASE. 
 
 of Lower Canada. The Manuel des Cures , by Mgr. Desautels, 
 Curate of Varennes, one of the honorary attendants of the Pope, 
 and honorary Canon of the Montreal Bishopric, published in 
 1864, contains as a preface a circular letter of the present Bishop 
 of Montreal, commending the book to the clergy of his diocese. 
 At page 17 it says : — “ No one can doubt that the common eccle- 
 siastical law which obtained in France, before the cession of Canada 
 to England, is the ecclesiastical law of Canada.” 
 
 Viewing the case of the refractory Fenian in the light of these 
 laws, I would not question the right of a priest to refuse com- 
 munion to him at his last moments ; but I would unhesitatingly 
 deny him the right to refuse ecclesiastical sepulture to his re- 
 mains. From time immemorial, Catholic France, both at home and 
 in the colonies, has maintained that the sepulture of the dead, even 
 in the times when ecclesiastical courts were in full operation, was 
 exclusively cognizable by civil court. Excommunication major 
 only could justify the refusal of ecclesiastical burial, by separating, 
 in a measure, from the Church the object of that excommunica- 
 tion. I need not tell an archbishop how such excommunication 
 should be pronounced to be valid ; but for his readers and mine, 
 I must say that the law never allowed excommunication unless it 
 were publicy denounced and personal, after admonitions. No 
 secret or collective excommunication has ever been admitted as 
 valid. In fact, no system of public laws could co-exist with a 
 collective or secret exclusion from an Established Church. The 
 French ecclesiastical and public law, as left to us at the time of 
 the treaty of cession, goes farther. It claims for the civil courts 
 the rights to examine whether excommunication, when pro- 
 nounced, is conformable in its causes with the canons or not. 
 When the case was argued here, numberless decisions of the 
 French Courts were cited, declaring null and void excom- 
 munications pronounced with all the external formalities of 
 the law, in order to reach the consequences of excommuni- 
 cation. And let me remark, that not one single case could be 
 cited contradicting the doctrine above mentioned, both as regards 
 the absolute necessity of a public and personal excommunication, 
 and as to the right of enquiring into the cause of excommunica- 
 tion. 
 
 Bringing these principles to bear on the Guibord case, I must 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 91 
 
 tell Archbishop Lynch (1) the members of the Institut Canadien 
 were never excommunicated, even collectively; ( 2 )Guibord was 
 never excommunicated, either collectively with others or person- 
 ally. An archbishop or one hundred bishops would lose their 
 time and words in asserting the contrary. If facts of a past age 
 may be distorted, and made convenient to support a system, con- 
 temporary history is beyond such manipulation. 
 
 [Mr. Doutre then goes on to narrate the circumstances in 
 regard to the Institut at the time of Guibord’s death. The lat- 
 ter had been refused communion, but that — a matter of daily 
 occurrence — did not amount to excommunication.] 
 
 The only excommunication which was ever pronounced in 
 Canada, according to the rules of ecclesiastical law, was that of a 
 newly married couple, who had gone to a Frotestant minister to 
 be married. This was some six or eight years ago, at Rimouski. 
 Guibord not being excommunicated, any reasoning founded on 
 that error falls to the ground. 
 
 THE INSTITUT CANADIEN. 
 
 After twenty years of uniformity in the calumnies heaped 
 upon this Society, one feels refreshed in hearing something new 
 in the shape of misrepresentation. I do not in any way impugn 
 the sincerity of His Lordship. I am sure he believes what hje 
 says. “ In the course of time, well-to-do Canadians revisited 
 Trance, and brought back the seeds of irreligion and too much 
 independence.” The only French people with whom the Insti- 
 tute ever communicated, before incurring the displeasure of the 
 Bishop of Montreal, were Abbe Charbonnel, who became Bishop 
 of Toronto, and Father Martin, principal of the Jesuits in Mont- 
 real. The Guibord case brought some members over to France, 
 but until then none of the members had any occasion to invest 
 in French irreligion, unless it were through the teachings of 
 Messrs. Charbonnel and Martin, some time about 1845 or 1846. 
 
 [Mr. Doutre goes on to recount the history of the attack by 
 the Church on the Institut, and shows that the Bishop of Mont- 
 real never signalized any. book in its library as objectionable, 
 although a catalogue was put in his hands.] 
 
 Four or five years ago the Nouveau Monde , the organ of the 
 
9 z 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 Bishop, said the same thing as Archbishop Lynch, that the lib- 
 rary of the Institut Canadien was filled with books fetid with the 
 most rampant infidelity, such as was destroying faith and mor- 
 ality in France — or something to that effect. The Bishop of 
 Montreal had never gone to that excess ; his assertions were 
 diplomatically enveloped, and he could not be called to account. 
 It was different with the Nouveau Monde. An action for libel 
 was brought against it by the Institut Canadien, and after a pro-- 
 traded investigation the Nouveau Monde was condemned as a 
 defamer. The case, if I mistake not, is reported in the “ Lower 
 Canada Jurist,” and may be perused. I hope that Archbishop 
 Lynch ignored these facts when he repeated the calumny of the 
 Nouveau Monde which could have appealed from that judgment, 
 but tamely submitted by paying principal and costs. 
 
 The Catholic members of the Institut Canadien never 
 claimed the right to read a disapproved book. They claimed 
 the right of being members of a literary society which 
 might have condemned books in its library. If they are 
 wrong no Catholic could become a member of Parliament, be- 
 cause the library of Parliament contained books condemned at 
 Rome. The facts, as I state them, have been established under 
 oath, both in the Guibord case and in that of the Institut Cana- 
 dien and the Nouveau Monde. There has not been an attempt 
 made at contradicting them. I do not care how many bishops 
 or archbishops would give their words to the contrary, — we have 
 judicial records on our side. 
 
 CEMETERIES. 
 
 All shades of worship possess cemeteries for the burial of 
 their deceased members, with very slight differences as regards 
 consecration, which it is not necessary to mention here. Let us 
 speak af the cemetery of Cote des Neiges, where it was ordered 
 to bury Guibord. When the suit began, and long after, that 
 cemetery was unconsecrated. This fact deprived the Fabrique, 
 defendant in the case, of the benefit of all the flourish we now 
 read in the Archbishop’s letters about the desecration of holy 
 grounds. It was, I think, after the appeal to England that, in 
 order to create to themse'lves a new weapon, the defendants 
 caused the cemetery to be consecrated. They imagined, in their 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 93 
 
 strategical combinations, that after fighting us from one court to 
 another they kept in reserve an unsuspected torpedo to upset us 
 after the victory, and they consecrated the cemetery at the 
 eleventh hour. The Courts, both here and in England, failed to 
 see tlie distinction, whether the cemetery was consecrated or not. 
 The Privy Council took it as a fact that Catholics dying with 
 their rights unimpaired were buried in a curtain part of the cem- 
 etery, and they ordered Guibord to be buried there. It was 
 ordered that he be buried where the Catholics were buried, with 
 ecclesiastical ceremonies. After the (death of his wife, the Insti- 
 tut Canadien, as representing her estate, bought a lot for the pur- 
 pose of burying her and her family. This implied her husband, 
 and in that lot he will be buried. Having taken from the Arch- 
 bishop’s feet the solid platform of the excommunicated Guibord, 
 I wish him to stand on something in his next letter. 
 
 CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 “It appears to me,” says His Lordship, “that the State, See., 
 is manifestly interfering in matters not of its competency and 
 consequently need not be obeyed, for conscience sake, but 
 (thanks !) this interference is rather to be tolerated to avoid a 
 greater evil.” That means, rather obey than be hanged. Many 
 people more commonly known in police courts than in palaces, 
 use the same reasoning. In his first letter His Grace, politely 
 bowing to Orangemen, asks them if they would acquiesce in an 
 unjust decree of a Catholic Sovereign, in a like case, where they 
 would be the aggrieved ? After the Revocation of the Edict of 
 Nantes, the Huguenots said, rather go away than be flogged or 
 decapitated, and they made the fortune of England, of the United 
 States and shortly after, of Switzerland, of Flanders, and Germany. 
 These were, like the Plymouth Pilgrims, the flower of their native 
 country. 
 
 The difference between their case and that of the champions 
 of the Church at the Guibord funeral on the 2nd Sept., 1875, may 
 be found in the utterances of the drunken rowdies who blocked 
 up the gates of the Montreal Cemetery. There are times whpn 
 unholy words have to be repeated. The Montreal drunkards 
 shouted: “No bloody * * * * * will pass 
 
 this gate! G d Guibord!” &c., &c. None of them 
 
94 
 
 HISTORY Of THE GUlBORD CASE. 
 
 could stand erect on their legs. These were the modern cham- 
 pions of religious convictions. They would rather be hanged than 
 obey, not knowing at the time the difference between a rope and 
 a glass of whiskey. Let us go up the ladder and come back to 
 the venerable Archbishop. He evidently wants to convey the 
 idea that Protestant judges know nothing of Roman Catholic 
 ecclesiastical law, and have no moral authority in the matter, and 
 must have been guided by religious prejudices and enmity. 
 That argument was propounded by one of our Superior Court 
 judges, who expressed the wise opinion that if the judges of 
 Lower Canada were called upon to grant damages for the refusal 
 to bury Guibord, they would be obliged to enquire fully into the 
 canonical causes of the refusal, and grant such damages if the 
 refusal were not justifiable, but they had no competence and no 
 adequate knowledge of ecclesiastical law to ordqr the burial ! 
 This opinion 'did not carry conviction in all minds. Simple 
 people asked themselves if the Catholic Church were constituted 
 under the Egyptian and Chinese systems of old times, when 
 priests kept to themselves the whole knowledge and laws of their 
 country, and so closely that none but themselves could under- 
 stand anything in it. Even Catholic judges were not supposed 
 to know anything of the ecclesiastical law. What could be said, 
 then, of Protestant English lords of the Privy Council ? They 
 could competently decide cases coming from India, governed by 
 Indian legislation, cases coming from Gibraltar, under Spanish 
 legislation, cases from former dependencies of France, Holland, 
 Italy, Denmark, &c., governed by the legislation of these respective 
 countries; but Catholic ecclesiastical laws were beyond their 
 attainments. Roman Catholicity claims to be semper eadem , and 
 no one but priests or bishops are competent to understand its 
 laws. If we had said so, we would be branded as the most im- 
 pudent defamers. Where and how could.human wisdom consti- 
 tute a more impartial and enlightened tribunal or jury than the 
 Privy Council ? The ecclesiastical law of England is almost the 
 same as it was before the Reformation. Ecclesiastical Courts 
 are in constant operation, and lawyers are trained as 
 actively as they were at Rome, until the unification of 
 Italy, in Courts ad hoc. The contest was not between Protestants 
 and Catholics, but between Catholics alone. Whether one way 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 95 
 
 or the other, the decision could have no manner of influence on 
 Protestant matters. If it be contended that the Lords might be 
 tempted into an assumption of power over Catholic questions, it 
 must .be remembered that they were exactly the proper tribunal 
 to dispose of such a question. The Fabrique invoked the treaty 
 of a cession from the Government of France to that of England. 
 The Privy Council is the Queen herself, acting with her advisors. 
 One of the parties to that Treaty was in effect called upon to in- 
 terpret it. Was it possible to come nearer to the source from 
 which the law emanated ? 
 
 I feel it to be tiresome to explain that we owe light to the sun, 
 and I must close. That light is shining brightly everywhere, ex- 
 cept in the Guibord case. Since its opening, half a dozen mem- 
 bers of the Institut Canadien have been buried wil,h ecclesiastical 
 honors ; one of them, a Freemason besides, was, buried after three 
 days of hesitations and discussions about these two qualities un- 
 der the chancel of the Church of Pointe Claire, near Montreal. 
 Another who died at St. Paul, Minnesota, another in Chicago, and 
 three or four others in Montreal, were all buried here with the 
 honors of the Church under the direction of our good and con- 
 verted Bishop. These facts are as notorious as the Guibord case 
 itself. A little effort at humility and submission to the law would 
 have settled the Guibord burial in the same manner, and I do 
 not despair to witness that result, though not under the 
 auspices of good grace. The Guibord case will have 
 this beneficial influence on the future of this country — 
 it will teach those who invoke treaties and law, that these facts 
 act both ways; that rights have their correlative duties; that no 
 one has the privilege of using rights and repudiating duties ; that 
 there is . only one Sovereign over these lands, the civil and politi- 
 cal Government ; that any attempt to defy that authority may 
 have the support of a few, but will be frowned down by all men 
 of any worth or standing, without distinction oi creed or nation- 
 ality. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 Joseph Doutre. 
 
 Montreal , Sept. 13th, 1875. 
 
XI. 
 
 INTERVIEW BETWEEN MAYOR HINGSTON 
 AND MR. DOUTRE. 
 
 On October 28th, an interview took place in the office of His 
 Worship Mayor Hingston, anent the Guibord burial, which caused 
 some excitement and was the ground of much comment. 
 The matter was brought about by Mr. Doutre, the coun- 
 sel for the Institut Canadien, and there were present Mayor 
 Hingston, Chief Penton, Col. Fletcher, A.A.G. of the District of 
 Montreal, Mr. Doutre, Q.C., Aid. Stephens, Mr. Glackmeyer, 
 City Clerk, and Mr. Roy, City Attorney. The usual formalities 
 gone through. Mayor Hingston, Mr. Doutre and Col. Fletcher 
 took seats at the table. 
 
 Mr. Doutre stated- that he had made bold to address a 
 letter to the Mayor and also to Col. Fletcher, in order that prompt 
 and proper measures should be taken to secure protection to the 
 funeral procession of the Guibord remains, which were to be 
 buried at as early a day as practicable. He had unofficially noti- 
 fied the Governor-General of the course he intended to pursue 
 in the matter, and of the occurrence that had taken place at the 
 last attempt to bury Guibord. He then proceeded to read the 
 law which governed the action of the authorities in cases when 
 riot was likely to occur, quoting from chap. 46, 36 Viet. Having 
 shown the duty of the militia in the matter, and that they could 
 be called out on the signature of a requisition by three magistrates, 
 Mr. Doutre reverted to the facts after the last attempt to bury 
 Guibord, saying that three or four days prior to the attempt he 
 had prepared an affidavit and submitted it to several magistrates 
 for their signatures. These gentlemen, however, had treated the 
 matter as a joke, and said they were not going to make fools of 
 
THE VAULT AT THE PROTESTANT CEMETERY— (See page 63.) 
 
INTERVIEW BETWEEN MAYOR HINGSTON AND MR, DOUTRE. 97 
 
 themselves by taking such extreme measures, as they were not 
 warranted by circumstances. Meeting so many rebuffs he thought 
 best to go no further in the matter, but to attempt to carry on the 
 burial. The result was too well known to require recapitulation. 
 He had tried and failed, and the blame rested upon those magis- 
 trates to whom his application had been made. As to the present 
 matter he was certain there would be trouble, for not later than 
 Sunday last — so he had been told — an immense crowd had col- 
 lected on account of a military funeral, suspecting that the affair 
 had something to do with the Guibord matter. When a crowd 
 had collected a riot might be started by a drunkard or an idiot, 
 but once started it would be carried on by others ; good citizens 
 would take part in it ; in fact he had seen good, well-disposed 
 citizens so inflamed by passion as to lose all control of themselves. 
 It was scarcely necessary to place a sworn statement in the hands 
 of the Mayor under these circumstances ; but as he, Mr. Doutre, 
 had to leave in a few days for the purpose of attending a meeting 
 of the Fisheries Council, he wished to have the authorities take 
 proper precautions in the premises, and to this end he had pre- 
 pared the necessary documents ; he had prepared a statement 
 which he read to the effect that he apprehended a riot on the 
 th of November next in the city of Montreal. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — I n the city of Montreal you say? 
 
 Mr. Doutre — Yes, in the city of Montreal; if any riot occurs 
 — of which I have no doubt — it will take place at or around the 
 hearse. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — But the cemeteries are outside of the 
 city limits, not in Montreal at all. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — It is true that the fence of the Roman Catholic 
 cemetery was the limit of the city of Montreal. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — Then I think your proper course would 
 be to see the Mayor of the Municipality through which the 
 funeral shall have to pass. I do not think your way lies through 
 the city of Montreal, and cannot see why we should furnish pro- 
 tection to outside municipalities; we have enough to do to pro- 
 tect the peace of the city. 
 
 Mr. Doutre— We are not bound to take the same route as 
 we took last time. We intend going through Montreal from the 
 Protestant Cemetery and around by Cote des Neiges road. 
 
 G 
 
HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASB. 
 
 98 
 
 Mayor Hingston — I certainly think that you will not be 
 doing right in carrying out this purpose. It looks like courting 
 collision and trouble with the citizens. 
 
 Col. Fletcher — The only thing not clear to me is the fact 
 that the law states that the magistrate who signs the requisition 
 shall reside within the municipality in which the riot is appre- 
 hended. 
 
 City Atty. Roy — O h, very well, that is all I wished to know. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — I wish to say that it is my opinion that 
 it would be better for you to take the same route as you did the 
 last time in this matter, and apply for protection to the Mayor of 
 the Municipality at the back of the mountain, through which you 
 have to pass. However, should any difficulty occur in the City 
 of Montreal, I shall do all that lies in my power, aided by the 
 police of the city and the militia of the district, if necessary, to 
 protect the life and property of its citizens. With regard to my 
 previous action in the last attempt to bury Guibord, I would say 
 that I exceeded my powers in the matter in going to the cemetery 
 at all, but having heard that a riot and bloodshed and murder 
 were going on, I felt that it was not the time to strain at a gnat 
 of form, hence my action. When I came home I put myself in 
 communication with the City Attorneys as to my jurisdiction in 
 such cases, and, fortified by their decision, I am prepared to do 
 my duty to the utmost as Mayor. Here is the decision of the 
 City Attorneys. (The Mayor proceeded to read the decision 
 limiting his powers to the city.) 
 
 Mr. Doutre — It is not necessary that you should sign the 
 document. The law allows you to be one, and thinking that you 
 might wish to so act, I called upon you as a matter of courtesy, 
 hoping that some arrangement might be perfected whereby the 
 public peace might be secured. If you do not wish to sign it, I 
 suppose some one else will ; in any event, I will obtain protection. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — Coming into Montreal would provoke a 
 hostile feeling that might be avoided by taking 'the old route. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — With the experience of the past before us we 
 have decided to come into Montreal for two reasons : in the first 
 place it was not citizens of Montreal who took part in the dis- 
 turbance of the znd September, but persons from the back 
 country. 
 
INTERVIEW BETWEEN MAYOR HINGSTQN AMD MR. DOUTRE. 99 
 
 Mayor Hingston — That is the very reason why you should 
 take the old route. Why bring the trouble — if trouble there be — 
 into the city at all ? 
 
 Mr. Doutre — We think otherwise. The authorities of the 
 municipalities through which we have to pass only employ a 
 policeman or two who would certainly be no protection at all, 
 whereas by coming through Montreal we would be subjected to 
 no annoyance until we reached the Cemetery at Cote des Neiges, 
 when the militia would aid the police — who had authority if they 
 wished to go outside the municipality, but of course could not be 
 forced. If there were measures taken in which they joined 
 there was no doubt that the public peace was secured and all 
 would be well. Besides, the distance to the cemetery by going 
 through Montreal and up Cote des Neiges was shorter than the' 
 route previously taken round the back of the mountain. Of 
 course if they were to split hairs about a piece of road being in- 
 side of the city limits, the matter would not be so easy of settle- 
 ment. I have been blamed by some because I did not press 
 matters before, and proceed to bury the corpse of Guibord. How- 
 ever, I so acted as I thought was for the best ; for it seemed to me 
 blood would have been shed had I proceeded further in the matter 
 at that time. There was a very large crowd of determined people, 
 to oppose whom, unsupported by law, would have been madness. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — Pardon me, Mr. Do.utre, there is no hair- 
 splitting at all ; but I do not see why Montreal should be placed 
 in the position of a protector to any of those outside municipali- 
 ties, when we had enough to do to protect ourselves with the 
 small available police force. It was not justice to our own 
 citizens who paid taxes for the support of the police force that 
 the latter should be at the beck and call of outside municipalities, 
 and if we commenced interfering in this matter there was no 
 knowing how far we might be required to go in the future. As 
 far as the city of Montreal is concerned, I will answer for it, and 
 the police force, I have every confidence, will second me in it ; 
 and here let me remark that I do not agree with you when you 
 state that the crowd that interfered on the 2nd of September were 
 composed nearly altogether of a rowdy element from the back 
 country. It was a calm, determined crowd, not noisy nor violent, 
 but determined to resist to. the. utmost, to all appearances, and 
 
too 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 apparently an organized mob of several thousand people, who 
 could have gobbled up our own entire police force with ease. I, 
 for one, think Mr. Doutie did wisely in not pushing matters at 
 the time ; for there is no knowing to what extent the trouble 
 might have gone had you acted otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — Well, Mr. Mayor, I now ask you if you will as 
 Mayor of Montreal sign this requisition ? 
 
 Mayor Hingston — I am not prepared to do anything of the 
 kind, unless I am assured that the peace of Montreal is endanger- 
 ed, and I have no positive assurance of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — My affidavit. If you do not sign as mayor, 
 you can do so as a magistrate. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — Excuse me, Mr. Doutre, you have asked 
 ne as Mayor, and my first duty is to the city and citizens of 
 Montreal. Fortified with a knowledge of how far I can legally 
 go as mayor, I am prepared to act as such at once, and tell you 
 that when the time comes I shall do my duty to the utmost, I 
 will not, however, now assume at a moment’s notice the position 
 of a magistrate in addition, and do that which may weaken my 
 power as mayor, especially when I am not sufficiently clear as 
 to my powers in the former capacity. When you come to me as 
 a magistrate I will answer you as a magistrate. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — Then I ask you as a magistrate : — Justice of 
 the Peace Hingston, will you sign the requisition ? 
 
 Mayor Kingston — I refuse to act in the capacity of 
 mayor and magistrate at the same time, and at a moment’s notice ; 
 and I do not think that you have acted fairly in requesting me to 
 meet you as Mayor of Montreal and then putting your question 
 to me as a Justice of the Peace. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — T hen I take your answer to be a refusal in 
 both cases ? 
 
 Mayor Hingston — No; I do not entertain the question for a 
 moment as Justice of the Peace. The interview began with the 
 Mayor ; your invitation to trie to meet you was as Mayor and 
 will end with the Mayor. There are, as you say, nearly two 
 hundred magistrates in the city, and why should you single me 
 out in the matter ? After this interview at any time you should 
 name or when you may call upon me, I shall answer you as a 
 magistrate and a justice of the peace, but now you ask me all in a 
 
INTERVIEW BETWEEN MAYOR HINGSTON AND MR. DOUTRE. 1 01 
 
 moment, and I do not know how far my action as a magistrate at 
 present may interfere with my future action or authority as 
 mayor. I decline to entertain the question as magistrate for a 
 moment. Besides you have not even mentioned the day upon 
 which you expect the funeral or riot or other trouble to take place- 
 
 Mr. Doutre — O h, well, I have left a blank that can be filled 
 up. I do so now and say the 4th November. This, however, 
 may be altered. I do not say that it will positively take place 
 upon that day. 
 
 Mayor Hingston — Well, as Mayor of Montreal, you have 
 my answer that I shall take all proper measures to ensure the 
 protection of the public peace within the limits of my jurisdiction. 
 As magistrate I do not enter into the question. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — Then I presume the interview is at an end. 
 
 The Mayor — I suppose so, unless you have anything more 
 to say to*me in my capacity as Mayor. 
 
 Mr. Doutre — I have not. 
 
 The interview then came to a close. 
 
XII. 
 
 WHAT THEY THINK IN ENGLAND. 
 
 (From the Times , Sept. 21.) 
 
 The city of Montreal has been cast into a state of something 
 like civil war by the question whether a man who died five years 
 ago shall be buried in consecrated ground. The story, which 
 our Canadian correspondent told yesterday, and which our Phila- 
 delphia correspondent recounts to-day, is scarcely freed from an 
 element of comedy, even by the solemnity of the grave ; but in 
 truth it is seriously important to this country, as well as to 
 Canada. Lower Canada, the scene of the quarrel, is noted for 
 the tenacity with which it has clung to the Catholicism of its 
 early settlers. The Jesuit missionaries who were among the first 
 leaders of the French Colonists left imperishable memories of 
 their energy, and some of the worse elements of their zeal seems 
 still to live in the Canadian priests. Nor have the descendants 
 of the early settlers fallen away from Catholicism like the French 
 of the present day. The cynical criticisms of Voltaire never 
 reached Lower Canada, and the faith of the colonists is pretty 
 much what it was when Louis XIV. dipped deep into his privy 
 purse to pay for the missions by which he helped to soothe the 
 memory of his sins. As the religious fervor of the people has 
 been quickened by the influx of Irish, the Pope has good reason 
 to be pleased with the devotion of Lower Canada. (The facts of 
 the case are here recounted). 
 
 It would be difficult to find a more instructive example of the 
 inevitable collision between the civil authority and the Roman 
 Catholic Church wherever that Church feels itself powerful. 
 What has happened in Canada might easily occur in Ireland, or 
 even in England. The authorities of the Catholic Church claim 
 supreme jurisdiction over their flocks in all matters spiritual, and 
 the merely abstract demand may be readily granted. In the eye 
 of the law their Church is merely a corporation, with no greater 
 
WHAT THEY THINK IN ENGLAND. 1 03 
 
 and no less rights than any other. It is in precisely the same 
 position as the London and North-Western Railway or the 
 Carlton Club, and it is allowed to exercise powers of discipline, 
 not because it > has a sacred character, but simply because its 
 members have the same civil rights as other citizens. If they 
 agree to obey a particular man and to be bound by a particular 
 set of rules, they may be held to their bargain so long as it con- 
 tains nothing essentially illegal. Within these wide limits the 
 authorities of the Catholic Church are certainly the supreme 
 spiritual judges of their flock, and they may deny any member of 
 their Communion the sacraments on precisely the same ground 
 as a committee of a club may expel any member who has broken 
 its rules. Nay, the Bishop of Montreal would have had a right 
 to prevent the body of Guibord from being buried in conse- 
 crated ground if the man had really forfeited his spiritual privi- 
 leges. But here comes the collision between the law and the 
 Church. Did he forfeit those privileges ? The Catholic priests 
 reply that they alone are entitled to answer a question which is 
 purely spiritual. But, in reality, it is civil as well, because the 
 denial of Christian burial has inflicted a stigma on his memory 
 and the reputation of his family. When his representatives claim 
 redress the Courts must treat the matter simply as a dispute 
 between certain members of a Corporation, and decide it as if it 
 were an action brought by some shareholders of a railway com- 
 pany against the directors. All a Court of law asks is whether a 
 particular contract has been kept, and if the bargain has been 
 broken it is bound to give relief. But, as it must retain the 
 power of determining whether a contract has been fulfilled, it 
 really becomes in the last resort the supreme judge of spiritual 
 as well as temporal affairs. Roman Catholics, Methodists, 
 Baptists, may all be free from any formal, connection with the 
 State, and they enjoy a large amount of liberty ; but they can no 
 more escape from the dominion of the law than the Church of 
 England herself. All the declamation of the Montreal priests 
 against Guibord’s right to his grave being negatived by their 
 spiritual jurisdiction comes from a confusion of ideas. They have 
 merely such spiritual authority as they draw from explicit or im- 
 plied contract with their flocks, and the Courts of Law must de- 
 termine whether they have broken the bargain, Now, the 
 
io4 
 
 HISTORY OF THE OT7IBORD CASE. 
 
 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decided that, 
 According to the law of the Canadian Church, Guibord did not 
 forfeit his right to Christian burial merely because the Bishop 
 included him in a wholesale excommunication. Sir Robert 
 Phillimore and the other judges of the cause did not pretend to 
 decide whether the law is good or bad. That is a matter which 
 the Vatican and the Canadians must settle for themselves. If 
 the Pope and the Bishop do not like the law, they can endeavor 
 to obtain a change in it ; but, so long as it exists, they are as 
 much bound to obey it as if they were the most secular of 
 traders. Any attempt to resist the decree of the Judicial 
 Committee must, therefore, be punished just as severely as the 
 most vulgar breaches of the public peace. 
 
THE STONE SARCOPHAGUS— (See page 104.) 
 
XIII. 
 
 THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 The excitement in the city and throughout Canada, England 
 and the United States, grew intense on the eve of the burial 
 which had been, after many postponements definitely settled for 
 Tuesday, November 16 th, iS75' Special correspondents from 
 English and American papers were in the city, and communicated 
 many interesting items of news to their respective journals, which — 
 from the exigencies of the case, the Montreal papers were not 
 allowed to publish. Many of these statements were tinged with 
 exaggeration, tending more to the discredit of the city than the 
 facts, which were bad enough, would justify. The volunteers, 
 who had been undergoing their annual drill, would often march 
 through the streets at the conclusion of their night s drill, singing 
 extemporaneous songs with such sentiments as the following: 
 
 1 We’ll bury old Guibord in the consecrated ground,” “ Guibord’s, 
 coffin weighs exactly forty ton,” &c., &c. 
 
 Pretty nearly every day of the week preceding the funeral, 
 exaggerated reports of the strength of the military were spread in 
 all directions ; while the general idea that His Worship the 
 Mayor would not use his influence to complete the burial were 
 rampant, and between the mystery of the operations, the import- 
 ance of the principle at stake, and the constant postponement of 
 the day, the excitement was kept at fever height. Even the mem- 
 bers of the press were not informed of the hour of the burial. 
 
 Owing to threats that Guibord’s remains would be exhumed 
 if buried in the consecrated ground, preparations had been made 
 for ensuring that his resting place would prove a permanent one. 
 At first the report was spread that above the grave a torpedo was 
 to be placed, which, although it would allow anyone to walk over 
 the grave with safety, would explode immediately on being 
 
to6 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 touched by any shovel or other instrument two feet below the 
 surface. This joke which was played upon the world met with 
 considerable success and lived for some time, and even now it is 
 understood .by some that one of these infernal machines is buried 
 above the remains. Next Mr. Reid, of St. Catherine street, was 
 given the order to make a stone coffin, or sarcophagus, weighing 
 about eight tons. This was to be in two parts, as shown in the 
 illustration, one half acting as a foundation for the wooden coffin 
 and the other half covering it. They were to be firmly riveted 
 together, and it was supposed would resist all attempts at disinter- 
 ment. But early in the week preceding the burial, the Mayor, 
 who had overcome his legal scruples to seeing the decrees of the 
 Privy Council carried out, objected tothesarcophagus on the ground 
 that it would cause a disturbance in being carried to the Ceme- 
 tery. The Institut insisted on having it used, till the day 
 preceding the burial, when at a meeting they decided to abandon 
 the sarcophagus, but cover the coffin with Portland cement mixed 
 with scrap iron, which on hardening would form a substance as 
 hard as stone and more difficult to drill. 
 
 On Saturday evening, a meeting of those most interested in 
 preserving the peace of the city at the burial was held, and His 
 Honor Judge Coursol was requested to act as attending magis- 
 trate — in default of His Worship the Mayor — at the funeral, which 
 request was acceded to. Lieut. -Col. Fletcher, Deputy Adjutant- 
 General for the district, also issued the necessary instructions to 
 battalion officers to have their forces muster on Tuesday morn- 
 ing, consequent on a requisition having been presented to the 
 effect that serious fears of a disturbance were entertained if there 
 was no adequate protection afforded the funeral procession. 
 
 The Sunday previous, the Roman Catholic priests in the 
 city and district had, at the Mayor’s request, commanded their peo- 
 ple not to go near the funeral, nor even look at it. On Monday 
 morning Mr. Doutre fyled the writ of mandamus ordering the 
 burial, and served a copy of it on the Seminary of St.,Sulpice. 
 The writ was made returnable on the 27th. He also demanded 
 from Rev. V. Rousselot, theCur6 of Notre Dame, that he should 
 perform the ecclesiastical rites over the remains the next morn- 
 ing, to which demand the following reply was made : 
 
THE FINAX BURIAL. 
 
 107 
 
 Montreal, 16th Nov., 1875. 
 
 To M tssrs. JDoutre, JDoutre & Hutchinson , Advocates of the In- 
 stitut Canadien : 
 
 I received on the evening of yesterday, the 15th inst., the 
 writ of mandamus and the notice you signified to me the same 
 day — a writ of mandamus which reminded me of the judgment of 
 the Privy Council in the Guibord affair, and a notice by which 
 you inform me that to-day, at it a.m., the remains of the de- 
 ceased will be presented at the Cemetery of Cote des Neiges ; 
 and you require me to give, or cause to be given, to these re- 
 mains the usual ecclesiastical ceremonies under pain of expenses, 
 damages and interest. It is my duty to answer you ; I do it 
 with full liberty ; you must not take it ill. 
 
 The concession and refusal of ecclesiastical sepulture — that 
 is to say, sepulture made in consecrated ground, with the prayers, 
 the ceremonies of the Church, the stole and the surplice — are 
 essentially within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authority, 
 and not in the jurisdiction of the civil authority. Already at 
 first, when one came in your name, on the death of J. Guibord, 
 to demand from me ecclesiastical sepulture for him, I replied 
 that the Episcopal authority had ordered me to refuse it, and I 
 produced the letter which confirmed that. But I immediately 
 added that I could offer him civil interment, and I offered it. 
 On this occasion I spoke as Cur6 in the name of my Bishop, and 
 not in the name of the Fabrique of Notre Dame. The Fabrique 
 had nothing to do with this question, as, in fact, no one had de- 
 manded anything of it, and it had refused nothing. It is not for 
 Messieurs the Marguilliers to decide whether such and such an 
 individual merits or does not merit ecclesiastical sepulture, and, 
 consequently, whether he should be buried in such and such a 
 part of the cemetery, whether consecrated ground or not. You 
 know all this well. Consequently you ought not to prosecute 
 before the civil courts the Fabrique of Notre Dame, since it was 
 not guilty of any delinquency ; and you have committed a seri- 
 ous injustice in denouncing it to the Privy Council for refusal of 
 sepulture, and in causing it to be condemned either to bury J. 
 Guibord or to allow him to be buried in the midst of Catholics 
 
108 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 who have received the honors of ecclesiastical sepulture, and 
 finally to pay^he expenses of this process. 
 
 The judgment of the Privy Council not having condemned 
 Mgr. the Bishop, the only competent authority in this order of 
 things, and having ordered the Fabrique to perform acts which 
 it has not the capacity to perform, to bury J. Guibord, or allow 
 him to be buried, you cannot in any way avail yourselves of that 
 judgment ; and the ecclesiastical authority persisting in refusing 
 his sepulture in the part of the cemetery where you desire to 
 bury him, you can proceed legally with its execution. However, 
 the Fabrique, condemned in consequence of the false allegations 
 of Monsieur J. Doutre to the Privy Council, resigned itself, 
 through respect for Her Majesty the Queen of England, our 
 gracious sovereign, to pay the expenses of the process ; and on 
 its side the ecclesiastical authority, to prevent greater evils, re- 
 signed itself to take an attitude purely passive. Fearing riots 
 and conflicts, which might have regrettable consequences, it made 
 words of peace heard from the pulpits, and exhorted all the faith- 
 ful not to attend this funeral. Meantime I declare to you, 
 
 1. That I cannot grant ecclesiastical sepulture to J. Guibord, 
 Mgr. of Montreal persisting in his refusal. 
 
 2. That you cannot yourselves effect or order the civil inter- 
 ment of J. Guibord in the part of the cemetery consecrated by 
 the prayers of the Church, but I of now offer it you in the other 
 part. 
 
 3. That if, despite all this, you persist in your deplorable de- 
 sign, I am obliged to resolutely protest against the violation of 
 the Cemetery, of the laws of the Church, and of the liberties of 
 Catholics in Lower Canada. 
 
 I have the honor to be, &c., 
 
 (Signed) V. Rousselot, Ptre., S.S., 
 
 Cur6 de Notre Dame. 
 
 P. S. — It is unnecessary to add that I shall be present at 1 1 
 o’clock at this burial, but only as a civil officer. 
 
 (Signed) V. R. 
 
 On the same evening Mr. Boisseau went to the office of the 
 Fabrique and tendered the fees, $4.35, due before burial. Mr. 
 
tHfc FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 log 
 
 Choquette, however, refused the money, remarking that he had 
 not been authorized to receive it. 
 
 The muster of volunteers that evening to receive instructions 
 and ammunition for the morrow was larger than for many years 
 before. The battalions which mustered were as follows : — Mont- 
 real Garrison Artillery, about 200 strong, Lieut.-Colonel McKay 
 commanding ; Colonel Stevenson’s Field Battery, about 60 strong ; 
 the Hussars under Lieutenant McArthur, numbering about 
 25 ; the Victoria Rifles, about 280 strong ; Prince of Wales Rifles, 
 250 strong ; the 6th Battalion or Hochelagas, 250 strong, and one 
 company of the Montreal Engineers. The city police to the 
 number of 100 men were also ordered to be in readiness. On 
 Tuesday, 
 
 THE MORNING OF TIIE BURIAL, 
 
 at half-past 8 o’clock, Chief of Police Penton met the Mayor at 
 the residence of the latter, and received instructions to march his 
 whole reserve force of about 100 men to the Protestant Cemetery. 
 The force left the Central Police Station at about a quarter to 
 nine o’clock, headed by the Chief himself and "accompanied by 
 the detectives ; forty of tire men were armed with breech-loading 
 Snider-Enfield Rifles, the remainder merely being armed with 
 batons. They proceeded in a column of fours along St. James 
 street to Bleury street and along that to the Protestant Cemetery. 
 
 GATHERING OF VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 The Volunteers above mentioned, to the number of about 
 1,100 in all, mustered on the Champ de Mars and presented a 
 very handsome sight in their neat and clean uniforms. 1 
 
 The Mayor appeared on the Champ de Mars for a few 
 moments about half an hour before the troops set out. Colonel 
 Lovelace accompanied Colonel Fletcher. The troops proceeded 
 along Craig street to St. Lawrence Main street, marching at the 
 shoulder for some little distance, after which they were allowed 
 to march at ease. Taking advantage of this, the 6th Hochelagas 
 struck up several songs, such as the. “Mulligan Guards,” 
 “ Marching Along,” &c. On both sides of St. Lawrence Main 
 street as far as Sherbrooke, the windows were thronged with 
 people, while numbers accompanied the force. St. Jean Baptiste 
 
110 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE, 
 
 village was characterized by the absence of on-lookers, very few 
 of the villagers appearing on the scene. The column turne 
 towards the cemetery at Mount Royal Avenue. 
 
 AT THE CATHOLIC CEMETERY. 
 
 About half-past eight Mr. Reid and Mr. Boisseau, Superin- 
 tendent of the Institut, accompanied by a couple of the former’s 
 men, came up to the Protestant Cemetery with their tools and a 
 quantity of Portiand cement, and at about nine o’clock entered 
 the Catholic Cemetery from the back and commenced operations 
 at the grave. The ground was found to be frozen about six 
 inches down, while there was a thin layer of snow above. How- 
 ever, by half-past nine, the two diggers, who handled their tools 
 vigorously, had got down about two feet, making the excavation 
 directly over Madame Guibord’s coffin. The hole to contain the 
 coffin measured eight feet in length and three feet in breadth, and 
 descended about four feet. The coffin of the late Mad. Guibord 
 was reached without difficulty, and an opening made on each 
 side and at the ends, in order to admit of a thick layer of the 
 Portland cement being introduced. At a quarter-past nine a.m., 
 a squad of police, eighteen in number, arrived under Sergeant 
 DeKonninck, and were marshalled round the burial lot, forming 
 a hollow square,* from the inside of which all civilians except 
 Messrs. Boisseau, Reid and reporters were excluded. The scene 
 was quiet, only a few members of the Institut and two or three 
 boys being present beside those officially engaged. Some twenty 
 or thirty young French -Canadian roughs gathered at or near the 
 vault, and as a reporter’s carriage drove up at about 9: 15, they stood 
 compactly in the way till the driver was about to stop or shout 
 out to them, when they slowly opened, and, peering into it 
 intently, let it pass. When Messrs. Boisseau and Reid first 
 arrived, Mr. Choquette, the secretary of the Fabrique, and Mr. 
 Deroche, the sexton, came over and took official cognizance of 
 the grave-digging, after which they departed. An old Irishman 
 tottering along on his stick was met making his way to the grave. 
 On being asked why he did so, he replied, “ Oh 1 I jist want on' 
 pape, and thin I’ll go back ; the Bishop won’t object to that.’’ 
 At to o'clock the grave was finished, and was ready for the 
 coffin. 
 
THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 I 
 
 A lead plate with the following inscription was dug up by the 
 grave-diggers from Madame Guibord’s coffin : 
 
 HENRIETTE BROWN, 
 veuve de 
 
 JOSEPH GUIBORD, 
 decddd 
 
 le 24 de Mars, 1873, 
 
 & Page de 65 ans. 
 
 The cross, which was standing all right on Sunday, was 
 on Tuesday morning found lying in the snow, torn apart. It bore 
 marks of the knives of telic-hunters, and was well whittled up. 
 At 10. 10 a number of members of the Institut, wearing their 
 badges of mourning, came up, and became attentive spectators of 
 the solemn scene. 
 
 At 10 o’clock not over twenty spectators were to be seen, but 
 were collecting from both ways. The weather was pleasant for 
 the time of year, and everyone appeared sanguine that the burial 
 would be successfully accomplished. 
 
 THE PROTESTANT CEMETERY. 
 
 As soon as the Mayor was aware that the military were 
 thoroughly organized, he ordered Chief Penton and his police to 
 march direct for the Protestant Cemetery, which they did. His 
 Worship preceded them, and on arriving at the gates was - delay- 
 ed somewhat by the absence of Mayor Edwards of Outremont, 
 on the joint requisition of whom and the Mayor of Cote des 
 Neiges, he had authorized the turning out of the city police beyond 
 the limits. However, in a few minutes Mayor Edwards arrived, 
 stating he had been delayed in order to consult legal authorities 
 as to the line of action he would be justified in pursuing. The 
 Mayor, who had given the subject careful study, made some ex- 
 planations, and it was at once decided to proceed with the burial. 
 The police formed in a hollow square around the cemetery vaults, 
 and Mr. Spriggings produced the keys, unlocked the massive 
 iron doors, and as they swung open he and his men entered, 
 followed by friends of the deceased. After a little delay the coffin 
 containing Guibord’s remains was produced, when 
 
 Mr. Boisseau asked if those were the remains of the late 
 Joseph Guibord, kept by him for six years, delivered up to him 
 
m 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 again on the 2nd September, and returned to him for safekeeping 
 on the same day. 
 
 Mr. Spriggings said they were the same. 
 
 Mr. Boisseau thanked Mr. Spriggings for the care he had 
 taken of the remains, and also the directors of the Cemetery for 
 their kindness in keeping them for so long a time. 
 
 Thereupon Chief Penton gave the command, “ Shoulder 
 arms;” the police did so, and the funeral procession started, 
 which, at that time, only consisted of a couple of carriages. It 
 proceeded at a slow walk down Mount Royal Avenue into Cote 
 St. Catherine road, and so around the mountain, the police being 
 
 THE SOLE GUARDIANS, 
 
 as the military were far behind, never going into the 
 cemetery at all. The procession drew all the residents 
 along the road out of their houses, and men and women 
 followed it on to Cote des Neiges. From here in to the 
 Catholic Cemetery the road was crowded with people of all 
 classes in cabs, carts, and on foot, while the stream of vehicles 
 which had been going west to meet it now doubled about, making 
 a sort of lane for a small funeral to pass through. Great quiet 
 prevailed and no one showed by look, word or deed, any feeling 
 of hostility towards the procession. 
 
 ALL QUIET. 
 
 About quarter to 1 1 a.m., some one hundred and fifty people 
 gathered together in the Roman Catholic Cemetery, and went to 
 the grave. A few were evidently rough characters, but they were 
 very quiet. At the same time a knot of young men gathered at 
 the Cemetery gates, but they manifested no disorderly disposition. 
 
 At 10.45 ^is Worship the Mayor and Judge Coursol arrived, 
 mounted on two splendid chargers, which they gracefully rode. 
 Without halting at the gates, they at.ouce entered into the Ceme- 
 tery, and up to the grave. About eleven o’clock, a man some- 
 what excited walked briskly through the Catholic Cemetery gates, 
 exclaiming, “About 400 Irishmen from Griffintown are coming 
 up.” This news was considered a good joke, and afforded con- 
 siderable amusement to the crowd, which appeared to be afflicted 
 with cold feet through standing still so long. During the inter* 
 
THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 1 *3 
 
 val between the departure of the procession from the Protestant 
 Cemetery and its arrival at the Catholic Cemetery gates, Mr. 
 Reid was busy preparing the cement to place about the coffin. 
 He had brought up a cart load of the cement and other material, 
 beside a portable wooden trough in which it was mixed. The 
 cart containing it came in through the Catholic Cemetery gates. 
 The Mayor and Judge Coursol, after inspecting the grave and 
 finding everything progressing satisfactorily, returned along the 
 Cote des Neiges road to meet the funeral procession. 
 
 CLOSING OF THB GATES. 
 
 At 11:30 a crowd of young people closed and barred the 
 gates, but they were evidently only in jest, as when the police 
 arrived, a minute after, they were opened. Dero'che, the keeper 
 of the Cemetery, then came down and took off the gates alto- 
 gether, quite an excited crowd being gathered round as he did so. 
 
 About five minutes after the Catholic Cemetery gates had 
 been taken down, the funeral procession entered between the 
 gate-posts, Chief Penton, mounted on his white horse, Col. La- 
 branche, sergeants and detectives at the head and flank of the 
 column of police, a portion of which preceded, and the balance 
 followed, the hearse. Not the least sign of disturbance was ex- 
 pressed as it passed through. The military did not follow close- 
 ly after the police, and were halted at the village of Cote des 
 Neiges. The crowd began gathering from every direction, and 
 ran with all speed up the various avenues toward the grave. The 
 police, when they arrived, formed a large square around the 
 grave, and kept the eager crowd back, while the coffin was 
 brought out of the hearse, looking somewhat dilapidated, and, 
 borne by four men, was placed in the centre of the bed of cement. 
 As this was being done, 
 
 Rev. Cur6 Rousselot came up, and, going alongside Mr. 
 Boisseau, asked to what depth the grhve was dug. 
 
 Mr. Boisseau replied that it had been dug four feet in depth, 
 by the authority of the cemetery at the first interment of Madame 
 Guibord. 
 
 Cure Rousselot next asked if the body had been properly 
 identified. 
 
 Mr. Boisseau replied that it had, and there was no mistake. 
 
 H 
 
HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 114 
 
 The process of filling the grave then began, and the Cur^ 
 went away. 
 
 As the crowd of spectators were standing around the grave 
 gazing on the workmen shovelling cement mixed with scraps of 
 tin and sheet iron, Mr. Homier, a reporter of the National , asked 
 Rev. Cur6 Rousselot, just as he was turning away from the grave 
 side, in what quality was he there ? The Rev. Curd replied, very 
 hotly, “ I appear here in the quality of a civil officer,” saying 
 which he abruptly turned, and passed through the crowd, tak- 
 ing off his hat to the salute of the police as he did so, entered his 
 carriage and departed. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MILITARY. 
 
 The Mayor, who represented the civil arm of the law, both 
 for the city and the two municipalities, while Judge Coursol ap- 
 peared on behalf of the military, was desirous of conducting the 
 funeral with the least possible parade or ostentation, and so when 
 he had, in company with Judge Coursol, ridden on ahead of the 
 procession, and found all quiet in the cemetery and at the grave, 
 rode back, and orders were given to halt the military in Cote 
 des Neiges, while the procession proceeded. As the column 
 proceeded along Mount Royal Avenue to the fjt. Catherine road, 
 it was noticed that the hands began to dip into the haversacks, 
 while occasionally something stronger than water was brought to 
 view. When near Roy’s hotel, a drunken driver of a swill cart, 
 coming in an opposite direction, demanded “ half the road,” to 
 the amusement of many in the ranks. The force turned to the 
 right at Roy’s hotel, and marched into Cote des Neiges. As pre- 
 viously referred to, when the head of the column reached Pender- 
 gasfls hotel, His Honor Judge Coursol and the Mayor met it, and 
 ordered a halt. It was then made known that a quiet entry had 
 been made into the cemetery, and that the services of the volun- 
 teers were fortunately not required. At the rear of the Prince of 
 Wales Rifles was Alderman Stephens, who trudged along on foot. 
 
 FILLING UP THE GRAVE. 
 
 The moment the coffin was lowered into the grave, the work 
 of mixing the cement with water was commenced in the trough 
 which stood alongside, and the workmen industriously plied their 
 
THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 IIS 
 
 spades, shovelling in the liquid cement, mingled with odds and 
 ends from a tin-shop, and scraps of sheet-iron, which, when the 
 cement hardens, weld the mass firmly together, and prevent brit- 
 tleness. The comments of the spectators were various as this 
 work went on. Some thought it an additional desecration of the 
 Cemeterv, and hinted that it was one more reason why the “cursed 
 Guibord would have to come out of that > others regretted ex- 
 ceedingly that the sarcophagus had not been brought up, as, if 
 not used as a casket, it might have been laid on top of the ce- 
 ment; others seemed to take th* whole affair as a huge joke, 
 though to many, who, with compressed lips and knitted brows, 
 viewed the scene from afar, it was the very reverse. As the fill- 
 ing in process continued, the police grew a little less strict in 
 holding the crowd back, and a very motley assembly speedily 
 environed the grave, getting in the way of the workmen, and 
 compelling Mr. Reid to order them away. Members of the In- 
 stitut picked up little pieces of the scrap iron as mementoes of 
 the unnatural way in which they had been compelled to carry out 
 the interment. Others sneeringly alluded to Guibord and his 
 mortar, and one made such pointed allusions to the workmen, 
 that one of them intimated quite plainly he would give him a 
 “ crack over the head ” if he didn’t mind. The fellow minded 
 accordingly. Mr. Camyre, a French-Canadian printer, related 
 to Guibord, stepped forward during the ceremony, and said if 
 there was nobody to say a word for deceased he would like to do 
 so. Guibord had taught him his trade, and he would like to 
 make the sign of the cross for him, which he did and retired. 
 The speaker’s remarks were not received with approbation from 
 a number of the roughs, who hooted at Mr. Camyre ; beyond 
 this there was nothing publicly said on the side of the Institut 
 Canadien. The animus of the crowd collected was so unmistak- 
 able, and their threats to dig Guibord’s bones out of the grave if 
 an occasion offered were so openly expressed, that Mr. Boisseau 
 determined to secure, if possible, a guard of police from the 
 Mayor, to watch the grave for at least twenty-four hours, thus giv- 
 ing time for the cement to harden into 
 
 SOLID ROCK. 
 
 The Mayor and Judge Coursol had departed on seeing the 
 
HISTORY OF THE GUIHORD CASE. 
 
 1 1 6 
 
 burial quietly commenced, and Mr. Boisseau despatched a spe- 
 cial messenger with a note asking the Mayor to provide protec- 
 tion, without which, he feared, the grave would be opened. 
 
 The Mayor promptly consented to this, and wrote out an or- 
 der for a sufficient body of police to be sent out as a guard till 
 such time as not required. The messenger met Chief Penton cn 
 route from the cemetery, and he stated that as soon as his men 
 had dinner he would send up a ghard. It may be mentioned 
 that Mr. Choquette, of the Seminary, also suggested to his Wor- 
 ship the advisability of providing police protection for a time. 
 The cement was filled in over the coffin to near the surface, when 
 the top dressing of earth was piled on, and 
 
 GUIBORD WAS BURIED AT LAST. 
 
 The drizzling cold November rain beat down on the snowy, 
 muddy ground, an<j on the spectators who witnessed the closing 
 act in a drama which commenced six years ago. When ajl was 
 over, Chief Penton rode up in front of the grave on his white 
 charger, the police were formed into two divisions, and marched 
 off in fours. A crowd of about twenty-five or thirty degraded 
 looking loafer? then gathered around the grave, and one ot them 
 in mockery put a dead thistle stalk at the foot of it, which was 
 snatched up by a bystander, at whom they began to jeer. They 
 attempted nothing further for some time, and looked rather un- 
 comfortable, as the rain, which was thea falling, had the effect of 
 damping their ardor. As the last cab, containing Mr. Boisseau, 
 moved off, they summoned up sufficient resolution to emit a good 
 square hiss and a few jeers. 
 
 THE MILITARY, 
 
 after waiting a short time a little way from the gate of the Catho- 
 lic Cemetery till the burial was completed, advanced down the 
 road, halting at the Cote des Neiges toll-gate to put the drags on 
 the gun-carriages, when they continued their march down the 
 hill along to Dorchester street; thence to Beaver Hall, and on 
 along St. James street to the' Champ de Mars, where they were 
 again halted. After a few minutes, orders to disband were given, 
 and each battalion marched to their armory , the Prince of Wales 
 Rifles and Garrison Artillery headed by their respective bands. 
 
THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 117 
 
 The former passed up along St. James street on their way to the 
 rink, which at present serves as their armory.. The latter part of 
 the march, as the first part of it, was enlivened with songs. The 
 only incident was the falling of one of the horses attached to a 
 gun of Col. Stevenson’s battery. The mud made the marching 
 very disagreeable for the military, who were covered with it up 
 to their knees, or “ eyes,” as a private had it. At the time of the 
 halt by the gate of the cemetery rain began to fall, and it contin- 
 ued to do so till the end of the march. 
 
 It was first proposed to march the soldiers home by the Monk- 
 lands road in order to avoid passing Cote des Neiges Cemetery, 
 but Col. Bond and other of the gallant officers protested so strong- 
 ly against this “back alley” march that the troops were eventu- 
 ally permitted to take the “ shortest cut ” home. 
 
 THOSE PRESENT. 
 
 Messrs. Boisseau, Dempsey, and other prominent members of 
 the Institut were present ; also Madame Rose, sister of the 
 deceased, H. Judah, Esq., Kenneth Campbell, Esq., and several 
 French-Canadian advocates. Mr. Joseph Doutre was not present, 
 owing to an important case he- was engaged in (McBean vs. 
 Carlyle), which six weeks previous had been fixed for that day, 
 and in which his adversary was proceeding, having over a 
 dozen witnesses to examine, and of his firm he 
 was the only one who knew anything of it. Also the Mayor 
 requested him not to attend the funeral, stating as a reason that 
 his presence might give rise to trouble, and as he had made every 
 possible concession to avoid trouble he would have complied 
 with that request even if he had not been engaged during the day, 
 as his presence was not necessary at the funeral. Upon Mr. 
 Boisseau devolved the representation of the Institut, and he cer- 
 tainly discharged his duties with great fidelity. 
 
 TOOK A HOLIDAY. 
 
 It is stated that the students of the French Medical School 
 and others did not attend their lectures, as usual, apparently 
 taking for themselves a holiday, very appropriate no doubt when 
 such an event in Canadian history as the burial of a Guibordwas 
 taking place. 
 
1 1 8 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 After the police and members of the Institute had left the 
 grave of -Guibord on Tuesday, several rough characters remained to 
 discuss the new situation which had been imposed upon them. 
 One present says they discussed the probabilities of attempting 
 to open the grave, but decided to let the work alone till dark, and 
 before night set in, Sergeant Burke came on duty with his police. 
 
 WHAT MGR. BOURGET’s ORGAN SAYS. 
 
 Under the heading, “ Marlborough s’en va-t-en-Guerre,” Mgr. 
 Bourget’s organ — whose last expressed wishes previous to the 
 Guibord burial were to the effect that no one in authority would 
 stir a foot to see it carried out conformably to the Queen’s decree 
 — thus expressed itself after the successful issue of the funeral : — 
 
 “ The clerks employed in offices, officers on a holiday from 
 their office, and cadets at fifty dollars a diploma who form what 
 it has been agreed to style Her Majesty’s loyal Volunteers in this 
 country, paraded solemnly in our streets this morning. They are 
 called to represent, with the exception of the wigs, the majesty 
 of a judgment of the Privy Council, legalizing the violation of the 
 rights of the Church in this country. As, however, the thing was 
 for this army of heroes to begin their warlike careers by an exploit 
 in the wrong direction from those by which a soldier ordinarily 
 gives proof of his quality, it seems one has blundered in regard 
 to the kind of arms with which they should be provided. In 
 place of making them trail carbines and cannons, why have they 
 not rather been given pick-axes, shovels and wheel-barrows? 
 Were not these the most fitting arms in the circumstances? One 
 can understand soldiers making it an honor to bury a dead man 
 fallen on the field of battle, but to go under the conduct of the son 
 of a beadle (Mr. Doutre) to bury a simple ‘ Pekin,’ for the pleasure 
 of passing him like contraband into the Catholic Cemetery is an 
 office beneath an undertaker’s man. It is said that certain volun- 
 teers are very full of enthusiasm at this opportunity of showing 
 themselves in costume. Each has his aspirations, however. The 
 Ontario volunteers, when they went on their pacifying expedition 
 to Manitoba, had for an object, their chroniclers asserted, to go 
 and hang the Metis ; but our volunteers are less malignant, they 
 .content themselves with burying the dead * * * * of 
 
 natural death.” 
 
THE FINAL BURIAL. 
 
 Iiq 
 
 A WALL TO BE PUT ROUND THE GRAVE. 
 
 A visit to the Catholic Cemetery Wednesday morning resulted 
 in finding the grave untouched, the snow which had fallen over it 
 during the night lying without a mark ; a piece of fence rail, 
 inclined at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizon, was sticking in 
 the mound over the grave, forming the only monument. A per- 
 son in the cemetery stated that the Fabrique intend putting a 
 stone wall 16 inches thick about the grave, thus marking it off 
 from the cemetery. A man was seen after the funeral near the 
 burial lot carrying a gun ; and two men who were returning from 
 the cemetery were arrested at Outremont by Constable Walton, 
 on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. Mayor Edwards 
 fined them five dollars each ; previous to the arrest they were 
 openly displaying a revolver while in their cart. Several shots 
 were fired by parties returning over the mountain from the funeral. 
 
XIV. 
 
 PASTORAL AFTER THE BURIAL. 
 
 MGR. BOURGET’S LAST WORDS ON THE AFFAIR — THE PIOUS 
 DRUNKEN CROWD— THE GRAVE CURSED — THE DEAD MAN’S 
 MEMORY INSULTED CHARACTERISTIC RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 The following pastoral letter, dated the day of the funeral, was 
 read in the various Roman Catholic churches of the city the 
 Sunday after : — 
 
 “ Hail to Mary, conceived without sin, the honor of our people.” 
 
 “ Let us greatly rejoice in this day that the Lord has made.” 
 
 “ Pastoral Letter of Mgr . the Bishop of Montreal concerning 
 the interment of Joseph Guibord. 
 
 u Ignace Bourget, by the grace of God and of the Holy Apostoli- 
 cal See, Bishop of Montreal, &c., &c. 
 
 “ To the secular and regular clergy, the religious communities 
 and all the faithful of our diocese, salvation and blessing in 
 our Lord. 
 
 It is for us, our very dear brethren, a duty to inform you how 
 the difficulty of the interment of the said Joseph Guibord, which 
 has so greatly occupied people’s minds and caused fear of serious 
 troubles, has ended. It is not, you will observe, to make known 
 the fact to you, since it is already known to every one, but to 
 enable you to appreciate the results of it, and to allow you to see 
 where is the triumph that was expected from it. 
 
 “ In our letter of eighth September last, a day of grace since 
 it is consecrated to the happy birth of the glorious mother of God, 
 we declared to you that the cemetery would not find itself polluted 
 and interdicted by the sepulture of this unfortunate brother. We 
 exhorted you in consequence, to do no act of resistance to prevent 
 entrance to those who had undertaken to perform it at all risks in 
 this holy place, 
 
PASTORAL AFTER THE BURIAL. 
 
 21 
 
 ‘‘We again lifted up the voice on the third of October follow- 
 ing, on the solemnity of the holy rosary, in order to prove to you 
 that the said Joseph Guibord had justly deserved deprivation of 
 the honors of ecclesiastical burial, for the reasons set forth in our 
 letter, issued the date of that day. We explained in these two 
 letters how we intended to make the ecclesiastical law respected, 
 while allowing the body of this man to be deposited in a part of 
 the cemetery. 
 
 “ Wqhave now, our very dear brethren, to signalize to you 
 the facts that have been accomplished, in order that you may 
 more and more comprehend how Divine Providence has regu- 
 lated everything, so that we might attain the object we had 
 proposed, to wit, that the law of the Church might have its course, 
 while preserving the public peace and preventing the effbsion of 
 blood. For that is all the triumph we were ambitious of, and we 
 need not here prove to you that this was the most beautiful. We 
 desired to spare the blood of good fathers of families, so that they 
 might not leave, by their death, either widows or orphans, and 
 we triumph in having been able, through your docility, to obtain 
 this success. 
 
 “ Let us remark, first, that, at our request, many prayers were 
 made in communities and families, to secure that this unhappy 
 affair, which has made so much noise even in far distant places 
 as well as in this city and the whole of our Canada, might be 
 terminated without any coming to blows, at the risk of exciting 
 the most hateful passions and kindling the flames of discord 
 between good citizens, who have hitherto lived in peace like good 
 brethren. 
 
 “ Everything having passed in perfect calm, we have to thank 
 the Divine Goodness, for having listened to our vows. We have 
 at the same time to thank the devout souls who both in the 
 religious communities and in Christian families have responded 
 to our appeal in sending to heaven their sighs and lamentations 
 in order to touch the heart of the Father of mercies and turn 
 aside by this means the evils that might thunder upon our 
 heads. 
 
 “ We ought now to recall to your recollection certain facts 
 which preceded the sad event that has happened to-day, namely, 
 the translation of the body of the said Joseph Guibord from the 
 
122 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 Protestant Cemetery, where it reposed since his death, into the 
 Catholic Cemetery of Cote des Neiges, 
 
 “ The first fact worthy of our attention is that it was respect 
 for the cemetery and the fear lest it were profaned by the burial 
 of a man dead , in the disgrace, of the Church, which revolted a 
 large number of Catholics and led them to oppose the entrance of 
 his body into the holy place. It was zeal that produced this 
 spontaneous movement, but it was not according to knowledge. 
 However, it passed in calmness, and the' public peace was not 
 troubled. When one considers attentively what took place at 
 that time, one cannot but admire the guidance of God who 
 disposed all things so that each one might convince himself that 
 one wounded to the quick the religious feeling of the people, and 
 that He. was not disposed to suffer that one should act in violation 
 of the respect which He has for the dead. 
 
 “ The second fact revealed in this attempt at the burial of 
 Guibord is the docility of this people to the voice of their pastors. 
 For although extremely excited and revolted in view of the out- 
 rage one wanted to commit upon the holy place, they quieted 
 down after they had been made to understand that the thing 
 would not be so. This is the reason why they continued to-day 
 in perfect calmness despite the public demonstrations which were 
 made, and which were of a nature to provoke and irritate them. 
 Blessed , therefore, are those who showed themselves pacific on 
 this day, so calculated to excite passions, for they shall see God 
 when he comes upon the earth to recompense his elect'. Beati 
 pacifci , quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur. 
 
 “ The third fact which characterizes this, in many respects, 
 unfortunate day, is the accomplishment of the threat which was 
 made. For we had truly declared , in virtue of the divine 
 fower which we exercise , in the name of the pastors , that the 
 place where this rebellious child of the Church has been laid 
 is now in fact separated from the rest of the consecrated cem- 
 etery , to be no more anything but a profane place. 
 
 “This is a fact accomplished with so much solemnity, and amid 
 circumstances so deplorable, that it will remain deeply graven in 
 the memory of the numerous strangers who shall visit the Ceme- 
 tery, as well as that of citizens who shall daily go thither to pour 
 forth their prayers. Each in casting sadly his regards on that 
 
PASTORAL AFTER THE BURIAL. 
 
 »23 
 
 tomb which is not covered with the blessings of heaven because 
 it is separated from the holy ground that the Church has blessed, 
 will give way to emotions more or less painful. ‘ Here lies,’ he 
 will exclaim, in the recesses of his soul, ‘ the body of the too fam- 
 4 ous Joseph Guibord, who died in rebellion against the common 
 ‘ Father of the Church, under the anathema of the Church ; who 
 ‘ could not pass the gates of this sacred place but that he was es- 
 ‘ corted by armed men, as if for battle against the enemies of the 
 ‘ country ; who, but for the good disposition of his fellow-citizens, 
 ‘ would have caused blood to flow ; who was conducted to this 
 ‘ sepulchre, not under the protection of the Cross, but under that 
 ‘ of the bayonets of the military ; who has been laid in this grave 
 4 in two feet of earth, not to the impressive ( onctueux ) chant of 
 1 the prayers which the Church is accustomed to make for her 
 • children, but amid the curses ( maledictions ) contained in the 
 4 breasts of the attendants ; for whom the priest obliged to be pre- 
 ‘ sent could perform no religious ceremony ; could utter no prayer 
 ‘ for the repose of his soul ; could not say a single requiescat in 
 4 -pace; could not, in short, sprinkle a single drop of holy water, 
 
 4 whose virtue it is to m oderate and quench the flames of the terrible 
 4 fire that purifies souls in the other world.’ 
 
 “ There will issue day and night from this tomb which con- 
 tains the remains of an errant man who would persevere till 
 death in his revolt against the Church, a lugubrious and lament- 
 ing voice which will cry loud enough : 
 
 “ 4 O all you who pass through this field of death, pause for 
 ‘ a moment before this tomb, and seriously reflect upon my un- 
 4 happy fate. May my example teach you that no one can with 
 4 impunity despise God and His Church ! Alas, the more eclat 
 4 that has been raised over my dry and withered bones, the more 
 4 a mark of infamy and dishonor has been attached to my name. 
 
 4 Why was I not hidden in an obscure place, and in a ground of 
 4 oblivion ? I would be to-day as if I had never been born. My 
 ‘ memory would not be a curse from age to age, as it ought to be, 
 4 and my name would not be in every mouth to be accursed from 
 4 generation to generation. Alas, one pretended to give me a 
 ‘ triumph, and one has only succeeded in perpetuating my shame 
 4 and my dishonor.’ 
 
 44 However it may be, our very dear brethren, it was for us a 
 
124 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 painful but rigorous duty to let you hear our pastoral voice on 
 this melancholy occasion. For it is necessary for us (o witness 
 on behalf of the indefeasible rights of the Church, and to protest 
 against irregularities which have deeply hurt a clergy who have 
 constantly shown themselves loyal to the Government and de- 
 voted to the country, and outraged faithful subjects to whom reli- 
 gion makes it an imperious duty to obey those who govern the 
 State in administering justice. 
 
 “ We have to declare to you, as solemnly as possible, that not- 
 withstanding all that has been done to the contrary, the Cemetery 
 remains holy ground, and continues to be worthy of all respect. 
 As it is the Church which has blessed and sanctified it, it is also 
 for her to prevent its being profaned. This is what she has done, 
 while inviting her children to offer no resistance to the entrance 
 of the funeral cortege into the holy place, which was made to-day, 
 in order that it should not be profaned by the effusion of blood, 
 and, at the same time, execrating the spot which was taken pos- 
 session of, spite of her, to bury one of her children, who, in his 
 life, dishonored her by his revolt and his injurious scorn. 
 
 “ Nevertheless, these facts which we signalize to your serious 
 attention have not, our very dear brethren, been accomplished 
 without causing grave injuries to our holy father the Pope, whose 
 venerable decree one has despised ; to your pastors, whom one 
 has trodden under the feet of authority ; to the Cemetery, which 
 one has seized by force of arms like a fortress of war ; to the 
 brethren, whose religious feeling one has unjustly wounded, and 
 whose blood one would have cruelly shed without a visible pro- 
 tection of Divine Providence. 
 
 “ In this view, the following are the recommendations we believe 
 it our duty to make to each of you, in order that the honor due to 
 the Cemetery may be required as much as possible by the 
 Catholic population : — 
 
 “ Therefore, be one and all of you, our very dear brethren, 
 more and more penetrated with religious respect for your Ceme- 
 tery, and enter it not except with fear and trembling. Make it 
 not a place for walking or pleasure, but go there as a pilgrimage 
 as often as you can. In traversing it consider it as the parish and 
 city of the dead. 
 
 “ There, pay attention, sleep the sleep of death all the men 
 
pastoral After the burial. 125 
 
 and women (ceux el celles ) who have for more than two hundred 
 years inhabited our city. Pause over these thousands and 
 hundreds of thousands of tombs which hardly contain any- 
 thing but fleshless bones and inanimate ashes. Hear the eloquent 
 voices that make themselves heard from the depths of these 
 sombre dwellings. ‘ To-day it is our turn,’ they tell you with the 
 most startling tone ; ‘ to-morrow it will be yours. Live every 
 day as if every day you had to die, and wait not for the moment 
 of death to prepare yourselves to die well. Let your life be 
 passed in a faithful performance of all the commandments of the 
 Lord. Oh take care that your Mother, the Holy Church, be not 
 forced on account of your criminal negligence to refuse you 
 entrance into this consecrated ground, there to receive the honors 
 of ecclesiastical burial.’ 
 
 “ It will be by such pious practices, our very dear brethren, 
 that you can honor your Cemetery with a particular worship. To 
 encourage you in this the Church makes in the holy place touch- 
 ing prayers, plants crosses, erects monuments which help to 
 remind us of our latter end, to forearAi us against the sins and 
 scandals which prevail in the world. It is with this object that 
 we propose to construct in the Cemetery each time that we are 
 requested, the Stations of the Cross ( Chemin de la Croix). 
 This is the practice at Rome, and it is also that which we desire 
 to see established in all the cemeteries of this diocese, above alt 
 since we perceive that one would desire to make them a common 
 and profane place. 
 
 “ For you doubt not, our very dear brethren, that this sacred 
 voice of the Cross attracts to the cemeteries during the pleasant 
 season, a crowd of good Christians, who pray, weep, groan and 
 think on their latter end, that they may sin no more. 
 
 “ Oh, our very dear brethren, what lively emotions and tender 
 sentiments one experiences in making the Stations of the Cross in 
 a cemetery, in thinking that the blood of the Saviour flowed in 
 torrents into the ardent braziers of purgatory, to wash the souls 
 that are there purified by fire ! What inexhaustible treasures of 
 grace and blessing one procures for the pious souls in purgatory 
 in gaining the indulgences attached to this pious exercise ! What 
 souls one sends to heaven in making the stations that lead to 
 Calvary ! How one returns home content when one has attended 
 with piety to this admirable exercise ! 
 
126 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 “ The path of the crois is therefore an excellent means of 
 attaching a parish to its cemetery. Now what would it not do 
 for love of this sacred place which recalls so many and so pre- 
 cious merfiories. It cares for and adorns it as much as possible, 
 in order always to find in it something that will augment its piety. 
 This is what may still be observed at Rome, where the custom is 
 to keep lighted lamps on each tomb. We were struck in visiting 
 the St. Laurent Cemetery outside the limits. For not knowing 
 what place this was, we took it for one of the finest quarters of 
 the holy city, so brilliant was it with the light of thousands of 
 lamps that burned in it. Oh, it was a ravishing and startling 
 spectacle for us this magnificent cemetery ! The opportunity of 
 experiencing our emotions at this happy moment presents itself 
 too naturally for you not to profit by it. 
 
 “We cannot terminate this letter without ardent prayers, that 
 after the example of the holy city you may have zeal for your 
 cemeteries in order that they may be a visible and striking proof 
 of your devotion to the dead. May this salutary devotion perpet- 
 uate itself in our happy country to the last generation. For with 
 it are perpetuated in their entirety, faith, piety, patriarchal man- 
 ners and religion. 
 
 “ Please observe, our very dear brethren, that it is under the 
 protection of the immaculate Virgin we write these presents, and 
 that it was on the festival of her blessed birth, and on the solemn- 
 ity of the rosary, which is for the Church an imperishable source 
 of graces, that we brought to your attention the serious question 
 which, has so greatly occupied us. The reason is quite plain. It 
 is because, to get over all the difficulties that assailed us, we felt 
 the pressing need of casting ourselves at the feet of the Blessed 
 Virgin who by her Immaculate Conception has bruised the 
 venomous head of the old serpent. It will be for the same reason 
 that this letter, which ought, it seems to us, to put an end to this 
 grave difficulty, will be read at the festival of the Presentation of 
 this august Child. 
 
 “ O holy Mary, bring your powerful succor to your unfortu- 
 nate children. Help those who are timorous and inconstant. 
 Invigorate those who are feeble and languishing. Pray for the 
 people who place all their trust in you. Intervene in favor of the 
 clergy who labor to make yob known, loved and served. Inter- 
 
PASTORAL AFTER THE BURIAL. 
 
 127 
 
 cede for all the religious communities and for all the religious 
 women who are consecrated to you. May all those who honor 
 and pray to you feel the wonderful effects of your powerful aid. 
 
 “ The present pastoral letter will be published after mass in all 
 the churches where public worship is held, and in the Chapter of 
 all’ the religious communities, the first Sunday after its receipt. 
 
 “Given at Montreal, the 16th day of November, 1875, under 
 our hand and seal and the countersign of our Secretary. 
 
 “ Ig., Ev. de Montreal. 
 
 “Jos. Oct. Pare, Chanoine, Sec.” 
 
BIOGRAPHIES 
 
 XV. 
 
 JOSEPH DOUTRE, Q.C. 
 
 The history of Joseph Doutre’s life is that of the struggles of 
 his countrymen for civil and religious liberty, and is, therefore, 
 of more than personal interest. His ancestors were from the old 
 Province of Roussillon, in the Department of Pyrenees- 
 Orientales. His grandfather came from the immediate 
 neighborhood of Perpignan, and had hardly arrived in 
 Canada when the country passed under the dominion of 
 England. Mr. Doutre was born at Beauharnois, in the Province 
 of Quebec, in 1825 ; was educated at the Montreal College (of 
 the Seminary of St. Sulpice), and studied law under the late W. 
 Dumas and the Hon. A. W. Morin, and also under Judge Drum- 
 mond. In 1844, at the age of eighteen, his first work, a romance 
 of five hundred pages, entitled Les Fianc&s de 1812 (The 
 Betrothed of 1812), was published. He was an early adherent 
 of the Institut Canadien, and ever since the warm friend of that 
 institution, which obtained its charter under his presidency. As 
 soon as the Avenir newspaper had taken a fair start in 1848, Mr. 
 Doutre became one of contributors. About that time a 
 comedy published in that paper, under the title of Tuque Bleue , 
 excited the passion of the late Sir George E. Cartier to such an 
 extent that the latter went to the Avenir office to demand the 
 name of the author, and, on being refused, said that all the 
 writers were cowards. Mr. Doutre, on hearing of this, challenged 
 Mr. Cartier to a form of settlement then more in vogue than now, 
 and a meeting took place near the Chambly road, where pistol 
 shots were exchanged to no effect either in the way of damage or 
 reconciliation, and the feud assumed the character of a Corsican 
 war, during which the friends of both parties had more or less to 
 
GUIBQRD’S GRAVE. — {See page 62 .) 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CEMETERY GATES. (See page 64.) 
 
JOSEPH DOUTRE, Q. C. 
 
 129 
 
 bear the brunt of fire. Both gentlemen were learned in the law 
 and made use of their legal weapons. Mr. Cartier being at the 
 head of the Government for nearly twenty years, had many odds 
 on his side, but the other was endowed with an inexhaustible 
 patience and coolness, and, after half a life time of waiting, he 
 finds himself unscathed on the side of victory. Mr, Doutre has 
 been a liberal contributor to the newspaper press, and most of 
 the journals of the province have at times published contributions 
 from him, although recently he has devoted himself more exclu- 
 sively to his profession. In 1848 he published Le Fr'ere et la 
 Smur, which was afterwards re-published in Paris. In 1851 he 
 was the author of the laureate essay, paid for by the late Hon. 
 Mr. De Boucherville, on “ The Best Means of Spending Time 
 in the Interests of the Family and the Country.” In 1852 was 
 published “ Le Sauvage du Canada To these should be added 
 a series of biographical essays on the most prominent political 
 men of that date, which appeared in the Avenir. As one of the 
 secretaries of the association, formed in 1849, for the colonization 
 of the Townships, he was instrumental in starting the first settle- 
 ments of Roxton and the vicinity, which work, it is said, Mr. 
 Cartier did much to impede, but could not destroy. In 1853 
 Mr. Doutre took the direction of the great struggle for the aboli- 
 tion of the feudal tenure, and by means of meetings held through- 
 out the country, and diligence and care in the preparation of 
 practical measures, the agitation came to a crisis at the general 
 election of 1854, when the Parliament, filled with moderate 
 abolitionists, passed a law which did away with this mediaeval 
 system of land tenure, without spoliation, and to the mutual 
 satisfaction both of the seigniors and tenants. The law, as passed, 
 failed to realize hopes of the more advanced abolitionists, but 
 Mr. Doutre, being convinced that it contained enough to generate 
 the desired consequences, contended as vigorously with his 
 friends to secure its adoption, as he had done to obtain the law. 
 Five years after the measure was completed, as it now stands, 
 leaving nothing to be desired. Another campaign of equal 
 importance began immediately after for making the Legislative 
 Council elective instead of being nominated by the Crown, and a 
 law was passed to this effect in 1856, at which time Mr. Doutre 
 was requested to stand as candidate for the division of Salaberry, 
 
 I 
 
*3° HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 in the place of the late lamented Hon. Jacob DeWitt, who had 
 been frightened from the field by the liberal election expenditures 
 of Mr. Louis Renaud, who then controlled the grain and flour 
 market of Lower Canada. These expenditures were also 
 successful in defeating Mr. Doutre. In 1858 there commenced, 
 in a decided manner, on the part of the Roman Catholic Bishop 
 of Montreal, the long looming work of destruction against every- 
 thing which gave manifestation of life in the minds of educated 
 Catholics. As the result of the exertions of those at the head of 
 the Institut Canadien there were signs of a vigorous Liberal 
 revival throughout the length and breadth of Lower Canada. 
 
 The Romish clergy foresaw that in proportion as the people 
 became intelligent and powerful their own absolute sway over 
 their minds and consciences would be diminished and destroyed. 
 Hence they began a war of extinction against this growing intel- 
 lectual life, and so far succeeded that in the course of a few years 
 the whole national literary life fell into the abyss, leaving the 
 Institut Canadien of Montreal to maintain the conflict alone. 
 The rage of the hierarchy was then concentrated upon this cursed 
 monument of a hated past and dreaded future. A combination 
 of multifarious elements was arrayed to storm this last rampart 
 ■of free reading and thinking. Mr. Doutre stood foremost in the 
 hand-to-hand battle which followed, and for many years he has 
 sustained the cause of mental freedom in the courts and in the 
 press with extraordinary energy, persistency and ability. 
 
 In 1861, Mr. Doutre, under party pressure, accepted the 
 candidature for Laprairie, which resulted in another defeat. 
 This election, however, had the good effect of drawing attention 
 to the evil system of two days polling, as it was evident that his 
 first day’s majority had been upset by large sums of money being 
 brought into play upon the second day. This is the last time we 
 find the subject of this sketch in the arena of politics. He has 
 since devoted himself almost entirely to his profession. In 1863, 
 under the Macdonald-Dorion Administration, he became Queen’s 
 Counsel. In 1866 he delivered a lecture before the Institut 
 Canadien on “ The Charters of Canada,” a remarkably concise 
 and complete synopsis of the political constitutions of the country 
 under the French Government, and indicating by its title the 
 intention of going further. 
 
JOSEPH DOUTRE, Q. C. 
 
 131 
 
 In the same year he was entrusted with the defence of 
 Lamirande, the French banking defaulter, whose extradition was 
 sought for before ourCourts. Afterthekidnappingof theman,when 
 he was about to be released, he followed up the demand for his 
 restoration to the jurisdiction of our Courts, through the Foreign 
 Office in London, to a point when the British and French Gov- 
 ernments were very seriously out of harmony, when Lamirande 
 -solved the difficulty by surrendering all claims to further 
 negotiations. 
 
 In 1869 the refusal of the Roman Catholic authorities to bury 
 Guibord, because he was a member of the Institut Canadien, 
 brought Mr. Doutre prominently forward before the country and 
 before the world as the champion of religious and intellectual 
 freedom. His conduct in connection with this case will give him 
 a place in history alongside of the great Papineau as the two 
 most illustrious French-Canadians of the present century. If 
 political success depended oh real merit and useful work, Mr. 
 Doutre has had claims second to "none to the good wishes of his 
 countrymen. If, on the contrary, the acknowledgment of public 
 services depended upon the sic volo , sic jubeo of a bishop, Mr. 
 Doutre has showed himself ready at a moment’s notice to put in 
 jeopardy the earnest efforts of a useful life, by paying his respects 
 to the remains of an honest man, who had committed no other 
 wrong than to do what he felt to be right in refusing to resign his 
 membership in a literary society. By subsiding and leaving a 
 poor and desolate widow to wander with the remains of her 
 husband, without telling her whether she should throw them 
 ignominiously in the Potter’s Field or apply for hospitality to the 
 cemetery of a presumably hostile creed, and at the same time 
 killing a society which had engaged twenty years ot his life, Mr. 
 Doutre could have secured the applause of the front of the file of the 
 hierarchy, but not of true and patriotic men. His choice in this 
 matter entailed political ostracism, and imposed upon him the 
 most arduous task of following the case in question from court to 
 court through all the degrees 6f jurisdiction in Canada, in order 
 to obtain the bfcrial of Guibord, of continuing the same in 
 England, before the Privy Council, not only without fee, but at 
 almost daily expense. 
 
 In 1874 Mr. Doutre was the leading counsel for the Witness 
 
132 
 
 history of the ghibord case. 
 
 in the Mousseau libel case, a position in which he won the 
 esteem of all who carefully followed the case. 
 
 In September of the present year (1875), the Dominion 
 Government appointed Mr. Doutre as counsel to advocate its 
 interests before the Fisheries Commission appointed by the 
 English, American and Canadian Governments, under the 
 Washington Treaty, to meet at Halifax to settle the question of 
 the Atlantic Coast Fisheries. This appointment was made in 
 consideration of Mr. Doutre’s intimate acquaintance with the old 
 French law, and of his great learning and ability. 
 
 It is, perhaps, impossible for those who enjoy a long inher- 
 itance of political and religious liberty, and to whom the anxieties 
 and the triumphs of the struggle are only felt as the echoes of a 
 distant past, to sympathize in the fullest degree with men who, 
 during their own lives, are fighting out this battle anew, not only 
 for themselves, but for their countrymen of the present and the 
 future ; but as we honor the names of those to whose faithfulness 
 our present liberties are due, so will Canadians of another day 
 look back with esteem to those who are now sacrificing them- 
 selves to break the shackles of their bondage. 
 
XYI. 
 
 THE LATE JOSEPH GUIBOED. 
 
 Joseph Guibord, over whose burial Ultramontanism and the 
 civil authority have come into conflict in this country, was a 
 F rench-Canadian Roman Catholic of distinguished piety and 
 fidelity to the doctrines of his Church, and of excellent moral 
 character. He was a printer, and for thirty-six years was in the 
 employ of the late Louis Perrault, and, later, of Louis Perrault & 
 Sons. It is an interesting fact, in the light of recent events, that 
 Guibord was for many years on intimate terms of friendship with 
 Bishop Bourget and several high ecclesiastics. Mr. Perrault did 
 all the printing for the Bishop’s Palace, and for twenty years 
 Guibord personally superintended the composition and printing 
 of the Bishop’s pastoral letters and other work belonging to the 
 foreign missions of the Church. He became thus personally 
 acquainted with a large number of the clergy, by whom he was 
 greatly admired for his patience and carefulness, his honor and 
 uprightness in all his dealings. A high ecclesiastical dignitary 
 of this city lately said, in conversation with a well-known 
 French-Canadian gentleman upon the present difficulty, that 
 he regretted exceedingly that the censure of the Church should 
 have fallen upon Guibord, for that having known him for upwards 
 of twenty years, he was the last man who deserved such a mis- 
 fortune. The same clerical authority stated that as far as honesty, 
 public and private virtue, and integrity in the broadest sense of 
 the term, were concerned, Guibord was without reproach. 
 Guibord was a man of more than ordinary ability. When the 
 catechism and hymns for the use of the Indians of the North- 
 West were published, l’Abb6 Garin, amongst others in charge of 
 the mission, consulted Guibord as to the best mode of putting the 
 Indian language into type, and of forming the matrices. Although 
 the Indian language was entirely unknown to him, Guibord 
 undertook the difficult task of putting these works into print, and 
 
i34 
 
 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 accomplished it so well that for ten years he furnished the Roman 
 Catholic mission in the North-West with the catechism and 
 hymns for the use of the Indians. In recognition of these services 
 l’Abb6 Garin and his coadjutors were accustomed to bring Guibord 
 some of the finest mink and otter skins that could be obtained in 
 the North-West. When visiting Montreal Guibord was one of 
 the first whom l’Abbe Garin, Bishop of Anemour and others 
 called upon, and the effusions of sentiment that passed between 
 them gave no promise that the pious and simple-hearted printer 
 would in future become the object of the anathema of his Church. 
 Guibord was foreman of Mr. Perrault’s printing establishment, 
 and was greatly beloved by his employers and fellow-workmen 
 for his kindness and many other good qualities. C. O. Perrault, 
 Esq., Vice-Consul of France, from whom we obtain several of 
 these particulars, says Guibord’s punctuality was proverbial among 
 those who knew him. The lawyers in St. Vincent street, where 
 he then worked, were accustomed to say in reference to this habit 
 of his: “ It is not one o’clock yet, for Guibord has not passed.” 
 Mr. Perrault considered him as one of the first printers in the 
 Dominion. He had great mechanical ingenuity, and was, in 
 fact, a scientific printer. He was the first who introduced 
 stereotyping into this country, and the first book stereotyped in 
 Canada was done under his supervision. Mr. John Lovell states 
 that he was personally acquainted with Guibord since 1825, and 
 during all that time he never knew him to have erred through 
 strong drink or bad company, or have been guilty of a dishonorable 
 act. At the time of his death he was the oldest printer in Canada 
 except Mr. Lovell. Guibord was sixty-two years of age when he 
 died. 
 
 Guibord was not one of the founders of the Institut Canadien, 
 but became a member thereof two or three years after its estab- 
 lishment. When the Institut fell under the displeasure of the 
 Bishop for refusing to throw out of its library certain books that 
 were placed in the Index at Rome, Guibord was one of about 
 two hundred members who persisted in maintaining their connec- 
 tion therewith, and who appealed to Rome against a the arbitrary- 
 course of the Bishop. Guibord died suddenly on the 18th of 
 November, 1869, but three or four weeks previous, when seriously 
 ill, he sent fora priest, who came and heard his confession. The 
 
JOSEPH GUIBORD. 
 
 '35 
 
 priest, acting under direct instructions from the Bishop, refused 
 to administer to him extreme unction unless he would withdraw 
 from the Institut, which Guibord declined to do. He rallied from 
 that sickness, but his death, when it subsequently occurred, was 
 so sudden that he had no time to send for a priest. A few days 
 before his death Guibord met one of his fellow members of the 
 Institut in the street, and asked him what was the news about their 
 appeal to Rome. The answer was that no news had yet arrived, 
 but the Institut hoped that justice would be done them. “ I hope 
 so too,” said Guibord, “ for I feel that I am going fast, and unless 
 this matter is settled before I die there will be a row (tapage) 
 about my grave. I am a poor man, and they will, no doubt, bury 
 me along with those that have been hanged if they can.” “ Have 
 no fears about that,” returned his fellow member ; “ your friends 
 will see that you are no worse treated than a rich man.” The 
 case of Guibord is another illustration of the curious fact that the 
 greatest sufferers from the intolerant bigotry of the Roman 
 Catholic clergy, have been men of superior excellence belonging 
 to their own Church. 
 
XVII. 
 
 BISHOP BOURGET. 
 
 Ignace Bourget, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal, 
 was born on the 30th of October, 1799, an d has consequently 
 nearly completed his 76th year. He is a native of the parish of 
 Pointe Levis, and was the eleventh of a family of thirteen 
 children. He was educated at the Seminary of Quebec and at 
 the College of Nicolet, and appears to have been early remarked 
 for his piety and an unyielding disposition in whatever he con- 
 sidered a religious duty. In 1821 he came to Montreal as Secre- 
 tary to Bishop Lartigue, and labored with extraordinary zeal in 
 assisting the Bishop to build the first episcopal palace, situated 
 where St. James Church now stands, on St. Denis street. In 
 1837 he was consecrated Bishop of Telmesse, and coadjutor of 
 Bishop Lartigue, and, upon the death of the latter in 1840, Bishop 
 Bourget took possession of the episcopal see of Montreal. He 
 lost no time in availing himself of his high position to bring the 
 whole order of ecclesiastical affairs as closely towards the then 
 existing Romish model as it was possible to do. He introduced 
 a canonical chapter, apd secured the establishment in this city of 
 the order of the Jesuits. He has also founded fifteen or twenty 
 other religious communities, besides a large number of charitable 
 and educational institutions. In all these latter works he exhib- 
 ited extreme jealousy of lay influence, and sought as much as 
 possible to make them tributary to the influence of the eccle- 
 siastical order. He has made five visits to Rome, and on his 
 return from one of them, in 1856, he introduced into his diocese 
 the rites and practices of the Roman liturgy, which, from its being 
 different from what the people were accustomed to, caused con- 
 siderable murmuring amongst them. In 1852 the cathedral and 
 episcopal palace on St. Denis street were burned down, and the 
 people of St. James Ward were desirous that he should construct 
 his new cathedral and palace on the plateau near the corner of 
 
BISHOP BOURGET. 
 
 137 
 
 St. Denis and Sherbrooke streets, where the necessary land was 
 offered him, as being nearer to the centre of the Catholic popula- 
 tion. His Lordship, however, had another locality in view, and 
 thought he would carry the war into Africa by choosing the site 
 for his new cathedral in the midst of the Protestant population 
 of this city, to the general regret of the people in the East End. 
 Besides the questions of the new liturgy and the site for the new 
 cathedral, as showing that in a conflict between the wishes of the 
 people and the will of His Lordship, the latter must pre- 
 vail, Bishop Bourget has had other serious differences with his 
 people. His ten vears conflict with l’lnstitut Canadien is fully , 
 related in the previous pages of this book. His difficulty with the 
 Seminary of St. Sulpice became at one time so serious that it was 
 no easy matter for him to get admission to the Church of Notre 
 Dame. This arose from his. attempt to dismember the parish 
 ■©f-Montreal. The Seminary, which, [from time immemorial, 
 has held the rights and title of the cure of the parish, 
 opposed the proposed division, and the matter was referred 
 to Rome. The result was a decree from Rome authorizing 
 the canonical erection of new parishes on condition that 
 the cures should be designated by the Seminary and 
 named by the Bishop. The latter then proceeded to erect 
 canonical parishes, but when the cures of the new parishes applied 
 for registers, the judicial authorities refused them on the ground 
 that the law not recognizing canonical parishes, only the cure of 
 the civil parish could keep registers. The Seminary again 
 appealed to Rome against the action of the Bishop, and the 
 matter has for some time been left in abeyance. Bishop Bourget 
 has made several attempts to found a Jesuit University in Mont- 
 real, but without success, the influence at Rome of the friends of 
 the Laval University at Quebec having proved too strong for 
 him, to the extent even that the Bishop did not conceal his 
 opinion that he had been unjustly treated by the Roman Curia. 
 On his last visit to Rome some years ago he procured a collection 
 of bones said to be the relics of St. Zeno, who is stated to have 
 suffered martyrdom at the hands of a Roman emperor, and sent 
 them home to Montreal as objects of worship, and in hope that 
 they might work “ some miracle.” They were carried through 
 the streets in procession from one church to another, but there 
 
138 HISTORY OF THE GUIBORD CASE. 
 
 was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm among Catholics on the 
 occasion, as if many of them felt ashamed ot the business, and 
 the interest in the relics was mainly confined to the softer sex. 
 Whether it is because they have not performed any miracle, or 
 are eclipsed by the superior virtues of Lourdes water, we cannot 
 say, but St. Zeno’s bones seem to have fallen into oblivion. In 
 1872 the Bishop’s golden wedding, or fiftieth year of his 
 priesthood, was celebrated with great pomp, and occasion 
 was taken by Father Braun to preach that noted sermon 
 in which the pretensions of Ultramontanism were pushed 
 to their extreme, and the hierarchy exalted to the level of divinity. 
 These Ultramontane doctrines, it will be recollected, had been 
 by the joint efforts Of the Bishops of Three Rivers and Montreal 
 embodied in a political declaration called the “ Programme 
 Catholique,” for the purpose of being used as a test for all candi- 
 dates aspiring to represent Lower Canadian constituencies in 
 Parliament, Dominion or Local, Catholics being told that any who 
 refused to subscribe to it were unworthy of their votes and 
 enemies to the Church. None opposed this precious tissue of 
 assumptions when first it was broached more emphatically than 
 the Conservative party and its organs, but since their character 
 has been injured, and their position rendered more or 
 less precarious in consequence of the Land-Swap and 
 similar scandals, they have assumed the airs of piety, and to 
 all appearance there are now no more devoted adherents of 
 the Programme and its abettors than they. On the occasion of 
 the golden wedding it was also resolved to proceed with the 
 erection of the Cathedral as a crowning monument of the Bishop’s 
 reign, and the building has since been progressing in proportion 
 as means come in to help it, the Province being dragged at inter- 
 vals by ecclesiastical nets in the shape of lotteries, bazaars, and 
 requests for gifts to supply the needful. Of his recent raid upon the 
 freedom of the press and public discussion and defiance of the'civil 
 power in the Guibord case, sufficient has already been said. He 
 seems very pious and very self-willed, and a true Jesuit in the im- 
 movable persistence with which he carries out his policy, 'and which 
 the Pope himself could scarcely oppose with success. In this 
 way he seems completely to dominate his own people, whose 
 national feelings he largely shares and still more largely uses. 
 
BISHOP BOURGET. 
 
 139 
 
 There is little doubt that many dislike him, but, except a very 
 few, they are careful to keep their opinions to themselves and 
 make an outward submission. Even the Irish or English speak- 
 ing Catholics have been forced to submit to what the majority of 
 them at first thought injustice at the Bishop’s hands in the 
 deprivation of St. Patrick’s Church of parochial rights, although 
 there still exists an ill-concealed undercurrent of sullen dissatis- 
 faction among them at what they consider the undue preference 
 shown by the Bishop towards the French-Canadians, and which 
 is not lessened by the humiliating way in which the English- 
 speaking Catholics are at times treated in connection with public 
 processions. This has led to jealous if not hostile feelings on 
 the part of the two sections towards each other, all attempts on 
 the part of their newspaper and other organs to mollify this 
 mutual animosity by fond appeals to common sentiment appear- 
 ing hitherto to be vain. It is said the Bishop does not like 
 English-speaking people, as they are an obstruction to the reali- 
 zation of his ambitious projects of making Lower Canada 
 an Ultramontane model. None have been so ready as 
 Monseigneur Bourget to receive and adhere in the fullest 
 sense to all the new dogmas of his Church. He is so devoted to 
 the Immaculate Conception that he cannot indite a pastoral with- 
 out one or more invocations to the Virgin Mary, while as regards 
 the Infallibility Decree and the Syllabus, it has been said that he 
 pushes their doctrines further than the Pope himself. 
 
XYIII. 
 
 THE KEY. CURE ROUSSELOT. 
 
 The Rev. Victor Rousselot, Cure of the Parish of Notre Dame 
 of Montreal, was born in France on the 17th of January, 1823, at 
 Cholet, in the department of Maine-et-Loire. He was the son of 
 Jean Rousselot and Marie Allion. The Rousselot family is 
 wealthy, and one of the brothers of Victor is engaged in the 
 banking business at Marseilles, and is reputed very rich. The 
 subject of this sketch was ordained a priest in Paris on the 10th 
 of December, 1846; was Vicar at Cholet in 1853; joined the 
 Seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris a short time after ; and came 
 to Canada on the 29th of May, 1854. After serving eleven years 
 as a priest he was, on the death of Rev. Mr. Provost, created 
 Cur6 of the Parish of Notre Dame on the 7th of April, j866. 
 The Rev. Mr. Rousselot has been the possessor of quite an 
 extensive private fortune, the most, if not all, of which is employ- 
 ed in works of piety and charity. He is the founder of the 
 Orphan Asylum in Bonaventure street, which was built entirely 
 by his own means. He is likewise the founder of the Nazareth 
 Asylum for the Blind in St. Catherine street, an institution of 
 great usefulness and very well appointed. This institution was 
 built partly by Ijis own means, and partly by private 
 donations, but it owes its existence entirely to the energetic 
 Cur£ of Notre Dame. Mr. Rousselot has visited Rome 
 once since coming to Canada. This was in 1872, and was 
 on business relating to the difficulties between the Seminary and 
 the Bishop, concerning the division of the parish. Father Rous- 
 selot is slightly under the medium height, but compactly built, 
 and evinces great industry and energy, as well as good adminis- 
 trative ability. His manners are very pleasant and even cordial ; 
 he is personally popular among the clergy and esteemed by the 
 people. He owes his notoriety chiefly to his connection with the 
 Guibord case. As President of the Fabrique, or churchwardens, 
 he exerts a controlling influence over that body ; and having been 
 ordered by his Bishop to refuse ecclesiastical sepulture to 
 
THE REV. CURE kOUSSELOT. I+i 
 
 Guibord’s remains, he has obeyed with a firmness indicative 
 probably of the strict nature of the injunctions laid upon him by 
 Mgr. Bourget. In private conversation he has often expressed 
 his regret at the occurrence of the Guibord difficulty, answering 
 enquiries with a smile and the words, “You know I am only 
 obeying orders from my superior,” and his correspondence with 
 Mr. Doutre published recently leads to the conclusion that the 
 necessity of this implicit obedience was a more convincing reason 
 to his mind than anything else that could be urged in support of 
 this refusal of sepulture. Rev. Mr. Rousselot has withstood the 
 Bishop in other matters involving the interests of the Sulpician 
 order to which he belongs, notably in the case of the registers 
 and division of parishes, and has been more than once castigated 
 by His Lordship’s inquisitorial organ. The gentlemen of the 
 Seminary used to have a reputation for being moderate and con- 
 stitutional, but as the Ultramontane party have become dominant 
 in the Church in these days, it is supposed that they have no 
 choice but to harden their faces, if not their hearts, and promote 
 any arbitrary policy that may be cut out for them by their 
 “ superiors.” From an exterior point of view such a position 
 appears to be ignoble, especially when they have to submit to be 
 lampooned by proteges of the Bishop and represented as demons 
 plotting against him under hatches, while he is praying above with 
 celestial ecstasy in the midst of a choir of angels — as the “ Comedie 
 Infernale ” depicts them, and then to bear the expense of law- 
 suits forced upon them from the same quarter. 
 
 When men are false to their reason they soon lose their 
 dignity, for is it not reason alone that distinguishes man from the 
 inferior animals, and has not the Church of Rome forbidden its 
 free exercise in regard to the weightiest matters with which he 
 can concern himself ? Was this noble faculty given merely to 
 weigh sugar and tea withal, and its exercise forbidden in the 
 higher realms of religious enquiry ? In this view those outside 
 the Church of Rome who enjoy freedom of conscience often feel 
 pity for the gifted men within the pale of that Church who 
 abandon, to all appearances by a compulsion they are unable to 
 resist, the convictions of a lifetime to accept new dogmas, as has 
 been the case with so many eminent divines formerly opposed to 
 the Infallibility Dogma, who gave in to it after it was decreed, 
 
XIX. 
 
 MAYOR HINGSTON. 
 
 William Hales Hingston, Esq., M.D., L.R.C.S., E„ D.C.L., &c., 
 Mayor of Montreal during the last and most exciting portion of 
 the Guibord burial controversy, is a son of the late Lieutenant- 
 Colonel Hingston, of H. M. iooth Regiment, which was after- 
 wards amalgamated with the 99th, and subsequently disbanded. 
 After its disbandment, he settled on the Chateauguay River, near 
 Huntingdon. He here organized the militia force in that county, 
 of which he was given the command. He died at an early age, 
 leaving a widow and six children, of whom the subject of this 
 sketch was the youngest ; being then only eighteen months old. 
 The widow, with rigid economy, managed to educate her children, 
 and William, who with the rest of the children was brought up a 
 Catholic by his mother, was Sent to a grammar school in the 
 neighborhood, of which Rev. Mr. Williams, a Church of England 
 minister, and subsequently Mr. (now Sir) John Rose were 
 teachers. At this school and the Montreal College, to which he 
 was sent at the age of thirteen, he obtained high honors, at the 
 latter institution at the end of the first year obtaining a prize in 
 every branch, carrying off three first and two second prizes. 
 
 He next spent two years studying pharmacy with Mr. R. W. 
 Rexford, when he entered upon the study of medicine at McGill 
 College. Immediately on his graduating he went to Edinburgh 
 to obtain the surgeon’s diploma from the celebrated university 
 there, and visited England, Ireland, and most countries of Europe, 
 spending the greater part of his time in the hospitals, and bring- 
 ing back with him diplomas from Scotland, France, Prussia, 
 Austria and Bavaria. In 1853 he began practising in Montreal, 
 and now ranks amongst the first in his profession, and is much 
 thought of as a surgeon abroad. Soon after beginning his practice 
 here he was appointed surgeon to the English-speaking depart- 
 ment of the Hotel Dieu Hospital. He was one of the organizers 
 of the McGill University Society, and on the organization of 
 
MAYOR HINOSfOtf. 
 
 Hi 
 
 Bishop’s College Medical School was named Professor of Surgery, 
 and afterwards Dean of the Faculty. Both of these positions he 
 resigned, as it appears his duties in connection with them were 
 incompatible with his position at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. He 
 received the decree of D.C.L. from Bishop’s College at Lennox- 
 ville in 1871. He was the first Secretary for the Province of 
 Quebec of the Dominion Medical Association, and last year was 
 elected Governor of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of 
 Lower Canada. He was twice elected President and three times 
 Vice-President of the Medico-Chirurgical Society of Montreal. 
 Last year he was elected to the civic chair of Montreal, princi- 
 pally with the view of, by his advice and knowledge, improving 
 the sanitary condition and character of the city. He was recently 
 married to Miss Margaret McDonald, second daughter of the 
 Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario. 
 
HON. CHABLES J. E. MONDELET. 
 
 Charles Joseph Elzear Mondelet, a Judge of the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench, is the son of Jean Marie Mondelet, notary, and 
 was born at St. Charles, River Chambly, 27th December, 1801. 
 He was educated at the Roman Catholic Colleges at Nicolet and 
 Montreal, finishing his education at the latter in 1819. He was 
 then immediately employed as an assistant to the Astronomical 
 Commission, appointed to define the position of the boundary 
 line between the United States and Canada, under the treaty of 
 Ghent. He studied law first under Mr. O’Sullivan, who after- 
 wards was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, 
 and completed his legal education under his brother, Dominique 
 Mondelet, who was appointed Judge of the Superior Court. He 
 was admitted to the bar in 1822, and after practising before the 
 bar for twenty years was appointed District Judge for Terrebonne, 
 L’Assomption and Berthier. In 1844 he was appointed Judge 
 of the Circuit Court at Montreal ; in 1849, Judge of the Superior 
 Court; in 1855, Judge of the Seignorial Court, and in 1858, 
 Assistant Judge in appeals in the Court of Queen’s Bench. 
 
 From his admission to the bar till his appointment to the 
 Bench he took an active part in politics, and was twice arrested 
 for political offences, but never put on trial. He published 
 his Letters sur V Education in 1840, the suggestions contained in 
 which are said to have been embodied in the school law passed ih 
 the first session- after the Union in 1841. 
 
 Mr. Justice Mondelet bears a very high character for his 
 legal learning and judicial fairness, and, as will be seen by refer- 
 ence to the previous portions of this book, was the judge whose 
 decision in the Guibord case was endorsed by the Privy Council, 
 
HON. CHARLES J. E. MONDELET.— {See page 144.) 
 
XXI. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MAYOR, 
 BISHOP BOURGET AND HIS PRIESTS. 
 
 Much importance has been attached to the correspondence 
 between Mayor Hingston, the Bishop and the Priests, in connec- 
 tion with the burial of Guibord, just previous to its having taken 
 place. It had been our intention to have closed this volume 
 with the biographies, hut as this correspondence has since been 
 made public, we insert it here. 
 
 Mayor Hingston had several interviews with the Roman 
 Catholic Bishop, the last being on November 5th, in regard to the 
 burial. His Lordship was ill in bed most of the time, but on 
 November 6th he sent the following letters to the Mayor : — 
 
 The Bishop of Montreal 1 presents his best compliments to His 
 Worship the Mayor, and expresses his fervent desire that by the 
 grace of God he may be able to maintain the peace in our city. 
 
 The accompanying letter, which he is at liberty to show to all 
 the cur6s of the city and suburbs, will enable him to come to such 
 an understanding with those gentlemen as shall facilitate the 
 attainment of the desired result. The cures to whom Mr. the 
 Mayor may present this letter are : Rev. Messrs. Rousselot, 
 
 Cure of Notre Dame ; Dowd, Cure of St. Patrick ; Hogan, Cur6 
 of St. Ann’s ; Tranchemontagne, Cur6 of St. Joseph ; Graton, 
 Cure of St. Henri ; Marichal, Cure of Notre Dame de Grace ; 
 Taillon, Cur6 of Coteau St. Louis ; Lonergan, Cure of Ste. 
 Brigitte ; Lavallee, Cure of St. Vincent ; Dugas, Curd of Hoche- 
 laga ; Sentenne, Cur6 of St. Jacques. 
 
 It may be remarked that the Rev. Jesuit Fathers and the 
 Rev. Oblat Fathers would render assistance to the cause if the 
 Mayor were to see their Superiors and have them asked to make 
 
 K 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 146 
 
 the same announcement in their churches as the curds. It will 
 also be done at the Cathedral. 
 
 It may also be remarked that this invitation to peace might 
 be made by Mr. Maynard, who officiates at St. Jean Baptiste ; 
 Mr. Salmon, who officiates at St. Gabriel ; Mr. Seguin, who offici- 
 ates at Ste. Cunegonde ; Mr. Dubuc, who officiates at the Sacred 
 Heart of Jesus; and Mr. Beaubien, who officiates at St. Paul. 
 
 It is more than credible that all the Catholics of the city are 
 organized to prevent the body of Guibord from entering into the 
 cemetery. 
 
 If the Mayor cannot see all these gentlemen, he will please 
 inform the Bishop of the fact as soon as possible. 
 
 (Signed), f Ig., Bishop of Montreal. 
 
 Nov. 6th, 1875. 
 
 (Montreal, 6th Nov., 1875. 
 
 Mr. Cure, — His Worship the Mayor will have the kindness to 
 deliver this to you, and he will himself inform you of his anxiety 
 on account of the very serious difficulties that it is feared will be 
 caused by the burial of Joseph Guibord, which it is proposed to 
 effect within a few days. If, as I have recommended them to do, 
 Catholics will refrain from being present at the interment, all fear 
 of trouble will be dispelled, for any conflict will then be impos- 
 sible ; and it is, as you cannot doubt, the most simple means of 
 accomplishing the triumph of the good cause — by peace. 
 
 In order to bring about this happy result, please, after Mass, 
 urge anew upon all your braves, to remain quietly at home. This 
 letter is to be communicated to the cures of the city and suburbs. 
 Pray and demand prayers for the maintenance of peace, and 
 believe me, 
 
 Your very humble and devoted servant, 
 
 (Signed), f Ig., Bishop of Montreal. 
 
 To Messrs, the Cur6s of the City and the Suburbs. 
 
 In reply to the Bishop’s letter thus presented the Mayor 
 received replies to the following effect : — 
 
 From Rev. J. M. Marechal, Notre Dame de Grace, Nov. 3rd 
 
 In reply to your request, I can assure you that those interested 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 147 
 
 in the question of the burial of this poor Guibord have nothing 
 to fear from the population of my parish, especially from that of 
 Cote des Neiges. You may live in peace in this matter so far as 
 Notre Dame de Grace is concerned. There will not be even 
 three sightseers from it, I can assure you. 
 
 From Rev. Joseph Graton, St. Henri, 6th Nov. : 
 
 In reply I can assure you I will do all that depends on me to 
 prevent my parishioners from attending the funeral of Mr. Joseph 
 Guibord. I can give you the assurance that my advice will be 
 listened to by my good parishioners, and you may depend on my 
 word. 
 
 From Rev. L. M. Taillon, Coteau St. Louis, 6th Nov. : 
 
 In reply to your request of this day I have the honor to inform 
 you that I will do all in my power to prevent my parishioners 
 from attending the burial of the late Joseph Guibord, and I hope 
 that after my recommendation there will not a single one attend 
 it, either through curiosity or through any other motive. 
 
 From Rev. Mr. Rousselot, Cure of Notre Dame, Nov. 7th, 1875 : 
 
 According to the desire of Mgr. of Montreal, and that of your 
 Honor, we yesterday read at the issue of Mass in the Church of 
 Notre Dame the letter which His Lordship had sent me, request- 
 ing that no Catholic attend Guibord’ s funeral , but that every one 
 stay at home. The brother who read this letter, M. Giband, 
 insisted on these recommendations in a manner that all our faith- 
 ful must have well understood. As for myself I can answer that 
 my sincerest prayer is that not even one of our parishioners may 
 be found at this sad burial. 
 
 Under the present circumstances, this complete absence would 
 be, to my mind, the best way for them to protest against the 
 profanation of our cemetery, and the violation of their rights and 
 the laws of the Church. In consequence, you may depend that I 
 will use my influence to dissuade my parishioners from going to 
 the Cote des Neiges Cemetery on the day and hour of the said 
 burial. 
 
148 correspondence. 
 
 From Rev. P. Dowd, St. Patrick’s Church, Nov. 8th, 1875 : 
 
 In answer to your enquiries, I beg to say that I am con- 
 vinced that St. Patrick’s congregation are quite disposed to obey 
 the earnest advice of their Bishop, and that though acutely 
 sensible to the attack made upon their religious liberties they will 
 abstain from taking any part in making opposition to the burial of 
 Guibord in the future, as they did in the past. 
 
 Please use your authority, however, to prevent any irritating 
 display which cannot be necessary, and might lead to bad conse- 
 quences. 
 
 From Rev. J. Hogan, St. Ann’s Church, Nov. 6th, 1875 : 
 
 His Lordship the Bishop of Montreal, in a circular sent to 
 me on to-day, commands me to exhort my parishioners to abstain 
 from taking any notice of the Guibord funeral. To this order I 
 shall attend. I may here state that as far as I can judge, the 
 Catholics of St. Ann’s Parish will take no steps in relation to 
 that funeral. I am satisfied that they will obey the pastors. 
 Let me, however, remark that it would not require much provo- 
 cation to arouse their passions ; and hence, I consider that un- 
 necessary parade would be both injudicious and dangerous. 
 
 From Rev. J. A. Tartel, O.M.J., St. Peter’s Church, Nov. 7th : 
 
 In answer to the desire which you expressed to me of being 
 informed as to the disposition of the people of our district, I am 
 happy to be able to tell you that our people are quite calm and 
 peaceable, and at this moment only desire one thing in regard to 
 the question which occupies us. This is that the interment take 
 place as soon as possible and that we may be at last relieved 
 from this trouble which harasses them. 
 
 From Rev. Th. Fleck, Sec., St. Mary’s College, Nov. 9, 1875 : 
 
 It is my firm conviction that the Catholics of this city, unless 
 they should be provoked by any insulting demonstration, are sure 
 to obey the injunctions of their Bishop and to let severely alone 
 the remains of the unfortunate Guibord. They indeed most 
 keenly feel that if the burial does take place in consecrated ground, 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 H9 
 
 their dearest and holiest rights will be most wantonly sacrificed. 
 If the outraged Catholics of Montreal had meant, so far, to use 
 violence against what they deem the worst kind of tyranny, they 
 might have easily taken the law into their own hands and by a 
 summary measure put an end to the contest. But we may rest 
 assured that they will suffer persecution for conscience’ sake rather 
 than grieve and disobey their spiritual guides. 
 
 From Rev. J. Lonergan, St. Bridget’s, Montreal, Nov. 6, 1875 : 
 After taking communication of Bishop Bourget’s letter to be 
 read to-morrow in my church, might I venture- a few words on 
 the Guibord burial. I am parish priest of the largest city parish 
 after Notre Dame. My congregation is composed of Canadians 
 and Irishmen. The feeling here sometime ago was intense. 
 All they wanted was no letter from the Bishop. A first letter 
 came and the feeling subsided. His letter of to-day will, I 
 am sure, finish the work of peace, and authority will keep in 
 subjection the wounded feelings of a Catholic population. I feel 
 bound to say that some newspapers are rendering a bad service 
 to the cause by saying that the volunteers are to be called out, 
 and that the city police are drilling, so as to meet any emergency. 
 This is only calculated to fire up again the slumbering cinders. 
 I have every reason to believe that if no unnecessary provocation 
 were offered, no trouble could be anticipated ; but if a demon- 
 stration such as a parade through the streets of Montreal be 
 attempted, then let the responsibility devolve sur qui de droit. 
 If the Cote St. Catherine route be adopted, which is just as short, 
 and would equally meet the exigencies of the Privy Council’s 
 decree, I am inclined to believe that all would go off quietly. 
 
 From Rev. J. B. Maynard, St. Jean Baptiste Village, Nov. 6th, 
 
 i8 75 = 
 
 I have received your letter on the subject of the Guibord 
 affair, and I make it a duty to tell you that our citizens will not 
 interfere at all in this sad affair. They will not go to this inter- 
 ment, I am convinced, for they have the good habit of listening 
 to their pastor, and their pastor will tell them not to go there 
 even out of curiosity. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 * 5 ° 
 
 As the Mayor contended that he had not the power to enter 
 adjoining municipalities where there are other Mayors and Cor- 
 porations, and as the Protestant Cemetery was in the municipality 
 of Outremont and the Catholic in that of Cote des Neiges, he 
 sought, through the agency of Montreal friends, the invitation of 
 the Mayors of those municipalities. They both asked his assist- 
 ance to preserve peace on the day of the burial, to which he 
 replied consenting to use his best endeavors to that effect. 
 
 OTHER DOCUMENTS. 
 
 In addition to these letters, copies of other documents have 
 been placed in our hands ; one ie a resolution passed by the 
 Police Committee on the 2nd of November, to the effect that the 
 Mayor had entire control over the police force, and that the 
 committee would readily give His Worship all the assistance he 
 might desire in any emergency. 
 
 A copy of a telegram received by Chief Penton from the 
 Adjutant-General of Militia, as follows : “ Colonel Fletcher has 
 
 been authorized to loan one hundred rifles on requisition of 
 Mayor,” and which was sent to the Mayor. 
 
 Requests from the Mayor to Col. Fletcher to supply the 
 rifles ; also a letter dated the 3rd to Chief Penton, informing him 
 of this, and to hold himself in readiness for instant action, as he 
 had received official notice that a riot might be apprehended in 
 the city on or about November 4th. 
 
 Letters from the Mayors of Cote des Neiges and Outremont 
 asking fot police aid from the city in case there might be a dis- 
 turbance in their municipalities caused by persons from the city, 
 and replies from thq Mayor granting the same. 
 
Witness Publishing House , Montreal. 
 
 SOL-FA LESSONS 
 
 WITH 
 
 A. Selection of Hymn® and Hongs, 
 
 A COMPENDIUM, BY THE AID OF WHICH ANYONE WITH 
 A REASONABLE KNOWLEDGE OF MUSIC CAN BOTH 
 LEARN AND TEACH THE TONIC SOL-FA SYSTEM. 
 
 to; 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 John McLaren. 
 
 : 0 : 
 
 During the last few years the Sol-Fa system of music has made great ad- 
 vances, more particularly in England. It is said to be particularly useful in 
 teaching children in Sabbath or other schools. This little book of 48 pages contains 
 some of the newest and best hymns sung by 
 
 MR. SANKEY 
 
 and others in the revival services, where they have done much good. It is pre- 
 faced with a full description of the system, from which anyone, with only a fair 
 knowledge of vocal music, can both learn or teach it. The following is the ap- 
 pearance of a portion of a page of this book : 
 
 Key B Flat. LET THE LOWER LIGHTS BE BURNING. 
 
 i 
 
 : Si . , 1, | Si : — m .:r.d | tj.l,: : h • » h i 
 
 Bright - ly beams our Father’s mercy. From his 
 
 | r: — .d:t . d | r : — : Si . , li | s, : — • d : r . m | f . li '■ ; d . , r | 
 
 light - house ever-more, But to us He gives the keeping Of the 
 
 JOHN DOUGALL & SON, Publishers, 
 
 Montreal, P. Q. 
 
Witness Publishing House, Montreal. 
 
 1,800 IP AGES FOB OWE BOLL AM l 
 
 APPLES OF COLD. 
 
 This is a semi-monthly selection of the most interesting Evangelical reading 
 that can be found in the religious press suitable for general distribution. These 
 publications, each containing four octavo pages, form most valuable religious 
 tracts. A parcel of 300 copies, assorted, are mailed free of postage to any ad- 
 dress on receipt of $1.00. 
 
 TEMPERANCE TRACTS. 
 
 MONTREAL SERIES. 
 
 This series of Temperance Tracts is published in the same form as “ Apples 
 of Gold,” and at the same price. Each tract pamphlet contains several articles 
 and paragraphs oh different subjects or phases of the temperance question, one of 
 which must catch the reader’s eye, and perhaps lead to the perusal of others, thus 
 obviating the difficulty of placing tracts in such manner before the eyes pf thos£ 
 desired as to be read. 
 
 MONTREAL “WITNESS” EVANGELICAL AL- 
 LIANCE EXTRA. 
 
 A record of the first Conference of the Dominion Evangelical Alliance held 
 in Montreal in October, 1874. It contains addresses on most important topics by 
 such men as Rev. John Hall, D.D., J. W. Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S., &c.. Rev. 
 Donald Fraser, D.D. , Rev. President McCosh, D. D., of Princeton College, 
 U.S., Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., Rev. Dean Bond, Lord Cavan, and many ethers 
 whose portraits are also given. This “ Extra ” has passed through severAwljH 
 tions and a few more copies are left. Price by mail, 25 cents. » 
 
 THE FAMILY DOCTOR, OR, MRS. BARRY AND 
 HER BOURBON. 
 
 A most interesting tale, illustrating the evils of prescribing intoxicants to 
 patients. Price by mail, 25 cts. 
 
 JOHN DOUGALL & SON, Publishers, 
 
 Montreal, P. Q. 
 
Witness Publishing House, Montreal. 
 
 (CONTINUED FROM SECOND PAGE OF COVER. ) 
 
 AGENTS WANtED EVERYWHERE 
 
 a ^ ) V e i publications. Cash commissions iillowed. Sample copies sent 
 free on application. r 
 
 TO ADVERTISERS. 
 
 From the number and large circulation of the Witness publications, it will 
 be seen that their influence must extend throughout Canada ; and the fact is, that 
 from Newfoundland to British Columbia, they are eagerly read. Between the 
 various papers, every class of people is reached. The circulations in round num- 
 bers are as follows 
 
 Daily Witness 12 500 Copies. 
 
 Tri-Weekly Witness 3 000 “ 
 
 Weekly “ 21 000 
 
 N’kw Dominion Monthly 3 “ 
 
 Xorthern Messenger 30 000 
 
 Making a total of. . 69 9<o “ 
 
 JOHN DOl'GAI.l A SON, Publishers, 
 
 Montreal, P. O. 
 
 DRESS AND HEALTH, 
 
 OH 
 
 HOW TO BE STRONG. 
 
 A BOOK FOR l.AOIES. 
 
 This little volume is one which should be in every household. It is a "nre- 
 ompilation of facts from all available sources of information on the evils of th 
 ,ent arrangement of the underclothing, and of the improvements conducive to 
 1 th which may be made. It also gives practical directions for making the 
 orm garments. Its price is but 30 cents — it having b -en placed at this figure 
 that it may be within the reach of all. 
 
 JOHN DOUi^ALL & SON, F. Aishers, 
 
 Montreal, P. Q. 
 
Electro typing. Job Printing, Chromatic and Plain.