The vindicator and Canadian advertiser, 21 mars 1834, vendredi 21 mars 1834

[" de ES qd - Arrangements proposed où the part ol the, \u201cwould not have left your Honorable Rouse \u2018the 'tWo memorials of Messire Roux and _hature of those already mentioned, would \u201clarm, and heing assured that the geatlewen | * of the suid Sewinary, with the consent of.: nthe city of Montreal, il the refusal of the, ! - Your Committee have also thought\u2018 that : : , Mr.BEpaRD in tie Chair.SEEN Ld prod Volume 6.apres = Be ep MONTREAL, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH oR] 4 & h ES 21, 1834.TTT TTPOETRY.T h ¢ Press, 4 PARODY.The Press! the Press! tho glorious Press! The deep, tho fresh, the ever tree! Without a mark, without a bound, 1t scarches the carth's wide serions round ; It plays with despots, it mocks their splcon, Or, like a tlaming rod, is seen, I'm on the Press! I'us on the Press ! 1'am where [ would ever be, : With the tink ahove an ! paper below, And the devil to pay where'er | ge, If the Ou should stor.and threaten ny fall, What matter\u2014what matter?I can beat then all.It loves, oh how it loves to ride Ort the lordly voice of popular tide, \u2018When every madcap spenks his mind, Or thumps his knuckles for want of wind ; And tells how gaineth the rational debt, And why attaxed the people fret.1 never reported for one short hour But 1 loved tha free Press more and more ; Aud backwards flew to my devils and type, Like a brar-cuts that loveth its mather's gripe; Amd kinder and kinder 1t 18to me, For the Press was barn to be useful and free.The world was chang d, and kings looked round, When the Prees first raised its bydra-head ; And the eyes of oppression and hatred rolled, And tyrants offered their bars of gold ; Aud never was heard suchan outers wild dis strove to sinother tho trce-born child.It has stoul since then, with stren«thand weight, In spite of prisons, an caxine great, With truth to guide and a power 10 range, And never nay England see its change.And lite, whenever it loves me less,.Shall leave me bound to the clorivus Press.Provincial Parliament.Lower.CTanada.HOUSE OF ASSEMELY.Report of the Speciut Coninillee on the subject of the Property belunging to the Seminary of Mou- treal.Tuesday, February 25, 1551, In Comittee, on the answer of His Fx- cellency to the Address of this House res-! cting lie property of tie Seminary oi! Montreal and other references.Present, Messrs.Bedard, Neilson, Gir- ovard, Viserand Kimbor.The Chairman laid before the Committee the legal opinions annexed thereto, trans-; mitted by the Superior of the Seminary of Montreal, No.1, 2, 3, 4.The following Report was adopted by a: mnjority of three to wo.Your Committee bave carefullv investi- ted the difficulties relatinæ to tbe propur-: 1ÿ and rightso! the gentlemen Ecelesiasties ! ot the Seminary of St, Sulpice of M mtreal and have reason to be convinced from the; enquiry annexed to this Repart.that fur a.length of time these rights have been put in.question, and this property has been disput ed by interested individuals, who have induced several Crown Officers in the Province, and even His Majesty's Government in England, to raise doubts as to the leat\u2019 exercise of that establishment, and to threat- i ca the said Seminary with a judical prose- 1 cution, if it should not consent tu certain: Government, Layinz aside the observations which! these claitns upon property, the titles to! which are uncontestable, recognized by public Acts, and guaranteed by the honor of the English nation.as is established by the documents anaexed to the evidence, shosild ; cause, your Committre cannot but regret, that an opportunity has not been given to the Provincial Legislature to parti-ipate in an arrangericnt, the resuit of wisich so inti- : « - .; M LS « t ste + \u201ca mately concerns the Canadian subjects of | posed the abandonment of the real property i erminati sn of that authority on tie ith His Majesty.Your Committee\u201d belicve Lvon possess, under the feudal tenure 2\u2014{ Jct?\u2014lhelieve Imay say that the deter- that this Legislature is the most capable of judging to what extent arrangements of the\u2019 or would no} be advantageous to the people of this country, an! of rezulating the manner in which they ought, for the interest of, all, to be effected.As the power of redeeming the seignori- al rights and dues in certain cases, might be advantazcous to the increase of trude and industry within the city of Montreal, | as it has appeared to your Committee, that these ducs indy have served as a moive or a pretext for those diflicuitics and those! pretensions which have led the inhabi-' tants of the country with well-founded a: the Ecclesiastical authority, would he dis-, posed to concur in measures which would tend to relieve that part of their seignivries of the above named dues, your Committee.think that Legisintive measures might be adopted on this subject, which would result therefrom, in such a manner as would be, most in necordance with the interest which the inhabiuts of this Province in general have in the property of this ancicut aud vea- erable establishment, ' , Though your Committce entertain no doubts ol the validity of the titles of the above mentioned institution, itimght have been led tu enquire, if any reasonable mo-' tives could lave rendered the intervention, of the Legislature necessary in some respects, upon the sul'jzct of the tenure within - xeculive 10 cominunivate the docuinents : which were asked for by Address, alsa the! insufficiency of the information given by\u2018 the witnesses wha have heen examined, in ignorance qf the real motives or pretended occurrences which have taken place.| i} Act of Donation \u201c « litre oncreur.\u201d sindemaity vs scarcely permit of a measure of such importance being brought to maturity, It has also equally felt the difficulty of legislating in an aflir of this nature, under the pilu- ence of embarrssments of more thun\u201d one kind, which the provisions of the Imperial Act, commonly called the Tenure Act, oppose to all legislation inthese matters.Wheretore your Committee concludes by humbly recommendinzto your Honurable House, that it is highly necessary to de- wand the total repeal of the said Imperial Act, which has so often excited the just complaints of His Majesty's Canadian subjects, and that the proceedings of this Committee should be taken up, at as carly a period as possible in the next session of the Provinetal Parliament.Ordered, That the Chairman leave the Chair and report, \u201cI'he whole nevertheless humbly sulmit- ted.E.Beoaro, Chrisman.Weonesoay, February 3, 1831.Present alt the Members.Mr.Ernann in the Chair.Read the order of reference.The Rev.Me, Quisier, Superior of the Seminary of St.Sulpice of Montreal, appeared and answered as follows :\u2014 1.Are you the Superior of the Institution established at Montreal, under the title ot the Seminary or * Communaute™ of Si Sulpice of Montreal ?\u2014I ar the Supesior of the Ecclesiastices of the Seminary or \u201c* Commuraute \u201d of St.Sulpice of Montreal.2, What isthe date of the foundation of that establishment and by whom was it funded *\u2014\"Phe date is that mentioned in the The Act is contained in the Edits and Ordinances, vol, I; at the 86th and following pages.3.Ilas the Seminary of Montreal any other titles than thuse mentioned in the said Edits and Ordinances, and can vou com- wunicate them =I koow of nane more au- tacntie.d.In what consists the real property of that establishment, and what is their tenure?\u2014The Seizniory of Montreal and St, Sul- pice and the Seigniory of the Lake of I'wo Mountains.5.What ara the charges uren that osta-! blishment and what is its object ?\u2014Accor-! ding to the deed of foundation, tie object of the said Seminary, is the relizious instrue- tion of tire Indians and L'rench, upon the [s1and of Montreal.6.Have vou artiled other charges or duties to those embraced iayour titles I\u2014We have voluntutily takea charge of a Colleze at the Litde Seminary, of a great number ot schools, ofan establishment lorforty young orphans and several other ciaritable iusti- \u2018rHone, 7, Hnve there ever arisen ary doubts as to the legal existence of the Seminary as to its ashts of continuing itself, and as to ita property I Will you make known to the Cuumnitea the nature of those doults, the date of their existence, and the nune ol those by whom they were raised 1\u2014Since 1961, the Law Oilirers of the Crown in this country, have almost constantly raised donbis as tu the legal existence of the Se- urinary as a Corporation, and to its right of property of the Seuigaivries which it pos- SeSses.8.Has the Seminary of Montreal, in reference to these doubts, made any clsims or memorials, obtained any opinions, and can-you communicate to the Committee u copy of such memorials, opinions, or claims made hy your establishment 2\u2014The Se- wminary has drawn up memorials, and obtained opinions.They we printed an known tothe public; Fhave not bronghei with ine a copy, but | can send one down to tLe Committee.9.Hnshis Majesty's Government ever pro- What were in this respect the propositions made to yon ?Will you state at what were communicated to you ?\u2014IHis Muajesty'3 Government las prapused to us to abandon our scignorial right.It has promised, iu, that ease, torccognise our legal existence, as a Corporalon, by grautivg us a charter, and tp assure us an ancual and erpetual equal to the amount of the scig- | niorial rights which wonld be surremlered | by us.These propositions were made to] us, fiest verbally, by His Excellency the Duke of Richmond, then Governor of Canada; since officially, by Losd Bathurst: himeelf, in 1826 and 1827, and through the channel of sume of the Governors of the, Province.} : | 10.What were the motives nnd reasons expressed by His Majesty's Government, \u2018o chgage you 10 arrange with it?\u2014\"The; reasuns expressed Ly His Majesty's Gov-j vernment were, Ist.to relieve the industry and trade of Montreal from the effects of thet feadal burthens; 2nd.10 sive uw legal exis-! tence to the Seminary as a Corporation rd.to assure and perpetuate the institu-' tions and objects on the foundation of the Seminirv.11.What was the determination of the Seminary ip that respect 7\u2014\"T'he determination of the Seminary was not toconclude | any arrangement without the participation of the reclesin-tical authority.12.In what state rests the afluir in ques- tiow, and what is the actual state of your va-{ tablishment 1\u2014\"L'lic husiness of negotiation bas remained suspended, and the Sewinary remain in possession.: ; 13.Have you any decuments relative to this object, viz.the cession, abandonment or alienation ol the real property of your! Institution, which you can connmunicate to 2) + the Commitee 2\u2014T he correspondence between the two parties Trincipatly interested the advanced state of the sesvion would in this business, being of a private and cpn- l'favorable to à cession, such as above men- period, and throush what channel, they |; fidential nature, I must beg of the Com- mitiee to be pleased to dispense with my giving communieatins of them.1f.Has the Government proposed to you any and what alrernative ?\u2014The Go- verniment has proposed to terminate the question, cither by a voluntary arrangement, or by a decision in the Courts of Justice.- 15.Has there been on the part of your censitair:s, any complaints against the exercise of your seigniorial rights, and what was their nature 7?Are these complaints of an olJ date ?\u2014There have nsver been any complaints as to the manner in which we collect our seigniorial dues, but there have been rome demands made by proprietors in Montreal, to relieve properties of the censuelle barthens, \u2018The first petition which I know of was presented in 1820, 1 do not know the name of the petitioner.1G.Dues your Institution meet with aoy difficulties in the collection of its revenues and sciznonal ducs ?2\u2014Besides the ordinary difiicultics, the doubts raised have excited greater, 17.Has your 1izht of possession or property been contested in the Courts of Ju tice, and what was tho result of those contests ?\u2014Our right of property has been contested several times in the Courts of Justice.The Court of King's bench at.Montreal, has always decided that the censilaires have na power 10 dispute the rights of\u2019 scigniors in possession.The Court of Appeals about the year 1700 gave a similar decision, byt in the well known ease of the Suminary against Fleming, the opinions of the Judges in Appeal were equally divided.18.ihe artangeincst propesad be the Cioverninent had taken place, can you state to us, if the tenure of your proprity, would have been changed to that of free 2nd cor- mon soccage 2\u2014I bilieve I have auswer- ed the question by the first portion of my TUth answer.which would authorise you ta arrange with : your ccusitaires for the cisht of lo le et ren- | tes, at the same time that it would aatho-! rise you to acquire other real propeny, e-! qualin amount to that re purchase, meet! with your approbation, and that of your Lustitution 7\u20141 believe such an Act would: meet with the approbation of die Seminary | vf Montreal.2), Do you consider yourself authorised | to make this declaration, and have you ini \"this respect any document that you can\u201d {commuanicnte to the Commitice ?\u2014The \u2018 knowledge that [ have, inmy capacity of: Superior, of the opinions of the members of the Seimninary, allows me to say, that Fam! so authorised.Lhave nooher documents | 110 produce, but the confidence of my bre- {thren, and the word ot a Priest, and ofa man of honor, 31.Will you state what 18 the erclesias- ; tieal authority, of which you speak in your! Lith a swer /=\"T'here is but one qutiority in the Catholic Church, 22, Can you mention the date of the last! cemmnnication on the subject of your pro-! perty which you have received on the part: of Goverament 7\u2014Ahout the beginning of 1832.23.What is the date of your Jast an- ,swWerorcomminunication with the Govern [ment on the rubjectof your property 7\u2014I| cannot state the date, but it was about Au-y gst or September, 1832, 21.Has the anthority to which yon have (alluded ia your 2stans wer been informed jf the pretensions which the Givernment: j has made to the property of th: Semin uy! ot Montreal, and the propositions whicn have been wade ou this subject on the part! fof the Government /\u2014\"The Bishop of the i Diacese has been informed thereof, | 23.Can you state what has been the de- !minntion of the said authority has not been ! tioneel, The Superior then retired.The Rev.Josren Contry, Bursar of the y Seminary of Montreal, appeared and an- swcre.l as follows.1.Are you the Dursar of the Seminary of Montreal, and for what period 7\u2014Yes, forahyat-tbirtecen years.The second and subsequent queetions to the 23th inclusive, putas above to the Rev.Mr.Quiblier, were again put to die Rev.Mr.Comte, who replicd thereto in the fo!- lowing order :\u2014 2.[tia tu be found in the Edits and Ordonnances at the SUth and following pages.\"3.1 know of none other more formal.4.They are the Seixnivries of Montreal, St.Sulpice, and the Lake of Two Moun- Lins.\u2018 .5.The whole is fully.detailed in.she B- ditdand Ordonnances.6.We have added thereto a College for the education of youth, an asvlum'for orphans, a hall in the Genera! Hospital for six poor inva'ids, a grezt number of ele- ineatary schools, and so:ne endowinents for the poor.7.Tuc Law Officers of the Crown have raised doubts os to the legal existence of! the Semirary and to its-right of propeny, since 1704, or 1765 tothe present day; from Mr.Mazeres to the present Attor- {ney General, whose Opinion J do rot know, 8.The Scwinary has caucel to Le printed some s\u2018atements and opinions in | support oliterighte ; it would be eauy tp send them to the Cuommitiez 0.Yes.The Government has proposed to us on several ocencinns to cede to it our Seignivries.| Jy spoke principally of the Seignjory of Montféal \u201cI proposed in ex 19.Would an Actof the Legislature, il chage for the Seigniorial claims, «-.perpe-u tual annuity ; it offered to assure the legal existence of the Seminary by a charter, to provide fully for all that was necessary to fulfil the institutions and _estahlishments with which we are charged.These propositions were in the fist instance made verbally by the Duke of Richmond, then evernor of this country, thea they were officiaily wade by Lord Bathurst in 1826, or 1827, and at the same time by Lord Dal.housie and since by Lord Aylmer.10.The first motive alleged by the Government was to free the censilaires of the Island of Montreal from their feadal bur- thens ; it appeared also desirous to putan cnd to the doubts which existed with regard to our legal existence.IH.\"The Seminary never had any fixed principle as toits mode of arrangement with the Government, which was desirous of relieving the doubts which existed as 10 the legality ol its establishment, and the Sem- nary were determined to com: t> no conclusion without the consent of the eeclesias- tical authority.12, Me remuins in strtu quo, and we have remained in possession on the same terms.13.1 have no documents whatever in my possession.\u2018They are in the hands of the Superior of the institution.14.The Government has proposed to us to cede our seigni nial rights, or to have the doubts decided in the Courts.15.1 have never heard our censitaires complai of the manner in which we exer- tise unr seigoiorial rights; I have a know- ledze that petitions were made on the part of sone individuals of the city of Montreal, praying to be relieved from their feudal bur- thens.\u2018These latier would have preferred that the scizniories remained in our hands, ifit was not that there were no incans of freving themselves from the right of luds ef ventes.16.\u2018I'he douts raised as to our rizht of property augment the diffi culty attached tu the collection of seizniorial claims.17.Our rizht of\u2019 property has on several Occysions been contesied; the Court of King's Beach at Montreal mv constantly matntiined that the \u2018oxvétaires could not contest the rizhts of seizniors in possess: sion.The Court of Appeals decided in the same way about 1790.In our last ease against Fleming, their opinion was divided.is.| believe that the Government had in view the facilitating the cenaituires in freeing themselves trom the seiguiorial ristta.\u201c19.Such an Act, partieulariy if it authorised the acquisition of real property, would meet with the approbation of our es- tabiishinent.20.I believe I know well the opinions of the Seminary on the subject, 21.The ordinary authority, that of the Bishop, 22.| do notknow precis2ly, but [believe that it was towards tie end ot 1331 or towards the beginning or 1833.23.It was in the course of the year 1632, as {ar as | can recollect.21.Yes 23.\u2018Phat authority appeared to be much opyin