Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.).

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a few days ago,

I now rise to perform a duty which I feel incumbent upon me, and a duty which I have postponed the discharge of until the present occasion for the reasons which I stated to the House when I had the honour to give notice of the resolution. In rising to move this resolution, which I hold in my hand, and which I intend to place in your hands, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I am assuming some responsibility, but I feel at the same time that I am discharging a duty and a conscientious one, and that I can appeal to the good sense and the intelligence of the Canadian parliament to receive and consider this question in the spirit in which it is introduced. I am afraid that outside of parliament a misapprehension exists in the minds of a portion of the people with regard to the meaning of this movement and the complaint covered by the resolution which I hold in my hand. If such a misapprehension exists, I hope that every member of this parliament will feel it a duty, no matter what his views on this question may be, to assist in removing that misapprehension and in having the question fairly understood.

The motion which I am speaking to will explain itself. We are entering upon a new century ; we are beginning to discharge the duties of a new parliament. We have welcomed home from a foreign and distant

land our brave soldiers who went to defend the honour and the glory of the British Empire. There is no divergence of opinion in the hearty welcome we give to those soldiers. They fought upon the same battlefield in the same cause. There was no question as to what altar they worshipped before, or what their differences of creed might be. They were brothers in arms, discharging the same duty, maintaining the dignity of the British Crown, fighting the battles of the empire, and gaining fresh laurels for that empire, the greatest that exists in the civilized world. With that feeling evinced on so many occasions by the most intelligent and the best people in this country and in the empire, is it too much to expect that we should wish to give further force and meaning to the sentiment that we are all British subjects, and that there is no necessity for any cause to divide us, but that we may join together and shoulder to shoulder perform all the duties of citizenship notwithstanding any differences of race or creed that may exist among us.

In moving the resolution which I intend to move, for an address to His Most Gracious Majesty, I do so because I feel impelled, on behalf of those I represent, to ask this parliament to sympathize with the demand we make that we be relieved from certain expressions connected with the coronation ceremony-not with the coronation oath, as has been said outside of this House, and also, I understand, inside it. We do not complain of the coronation oath. I do not and would not propose to touch it to the extent of the crossing of a ' t' or the dotting of an ' i'. The coronation oath remains intact. It provides for the succession of Protestant sovereigns in the British Empire. Every sovereign who ascends the Throne is bound to take and subscribe to that oath, by which he is sworn to maintain the Protestant religion as established by law. What I am dealing with is not the coronation oath at all ; it is a declaration beyond and beside the coronation oath. It is one as useless, so far as any practical purpose is concerned, as a fifth wheel to a coach. It is useless for all good purposes. If any lion, gentleman in this Chamber will show me that in asking for the removal of this declaration, which I consider perfectly useless, except for the purpose of wounding the susceptibilities of a portion of His Majesty's subjects-if any hon. gentleman will satisfy me that in the carrying out of this request any injury is done, or that we are impairing the strength of the Crown, or interfering with the permanence of the succession of the Crown as now arranged, I shall be willing to withdraw my resolution. But surely, when I appeal to the good sense of the House, and ask them to take the same view of the matter as prominent Protestant

Mr. COSTIGAN.

writers and public men, they will come to the conclusion that this declaration is entirely unnecessary, and might be done away with.

This is the object I have in view, and it it on these grounds that I ask the House to accept this resolution. I may give a few reasons why I think the House ought to accept it. I do not propose to make a lengthy speech or a lengthy appeal to the intelligence of the House on this question. I think that all it requires it to put the simple facts before the House, and leave the House calmly to use its own judgment upon them. But I must make one or two quotations and refer to one or two incidents to show how strongly the Protestant mind feels on this subject. When the question was discussed in 1867, I think in the British House of Commons, Earl Kimberley, who had formerly been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and as such had been obliged by the law to make this declaration, just as His Majesty is obliged by the law to make it-because the King is obliged to obey the law as well as the subject-Earl Kimberley said-I give his own words :

He had himself been called to make this declaration before the Irish Privy Council in the presence of a large number of persons of the Roman Catholic faith, and he must say that he had never in his life made a declaration with more pain than when he was required, before men holding high office, and for whom he had the greatest respect, to declare the tenets of their religion to be superstitious and idolatrous.

Now, I lake the issue of a newspaper of a later day, the Guardian, which I am credibly informed is one of the most respectable Protestant organs published in England. It gives over a column to the question of the coronation oath, the declaration, and the attendant ceremonies ; but I will read the closing paragraph as bearing most directly on this question :

However unreasonable and objectionable in its terms the declaration may be, it is satisfactory to know that it cannot, under any circumstances, with the long-established custom of deferring the coronation, be uttered in Westminster Abbey. But it will be highly unfortunate if the necessary legal steps cannot at once be taken to relieve Edward VII. from the necessity of uttering, even in Westminster Palace, words which cannot but be singularly offensive to millions of his subjects, not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout his great dominions across the sea. Christian charity has made great strides in two and a half centuries, and if this declaration of the time of Charles II. has long ago become too offensive to be used by any of His Majesty's subjects, why is the studied insult of calling all his Roman Catholic subjects idolaters to be maintained as a part of the King's accession duties ?

A quiet ana dignified declaration of personal loyalty to the Church of England Is all that is necessary. If unhappily the law officers of the Crown see no way out of the difficulty in the

short interval before the King meets his first parliament, the deliberate use of such a string of offensive terms cannot fail to produce mischievous heartburnings and dangerous misunderstandings. International notice is nowadays far more keenly awake to royal declarations than it was in the early times of the Hanoverian dynasty. We shall be heartily sorry if Edward VII. is obliged to use words which will brand the King of Portugal, the King of the Belgians and many other royal mourners by the good Queen's grave as superstitious idolaters.

This is the opinion of one of the most prominent Protestant journals published in England. I might quote a good many other authorities, but do not think it necessary. I do not think it would be paying a compliment to the intelligence of the members of this House, with the opportunities they enjoy of making themselves acquainted with the subject, with the records in the library at their disposal, with all the information available to them, to undertake to argue a case to which, it seems to me, there cannot be two sides.

Therefore, I beg to move :

That a humble address be presented to His Most Gracious Majesty the King, as follows :- Most Gracious Majesty :

Your Majesty's most faithful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, beg leave most humbly to represent :

That as a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the equality of rights guaranteed to all British subjects in the Canadian confederation, as well as under the British constitution, the British sovereign should not be called to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.

That by virtue of the Act of Settlement of 1G89, the British sovereign, on the first day of the meeting of the first parliament, or at the coronation, is called upon to make the following declaration :-

' I, A. B., by the grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever ; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare, that I do make this declaration, and each and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, and without any hope of such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever, should dispense

with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.'

That such declaration is offensive to the convictions of all Roman Catholics.

That the staunch loyalty of Your Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada and throughout British possessions should exempt them from any offensive reference to the religion by their sovereign.

That, in the opinion of this House, the above-mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to quote from the Act of Settlement which requires such a declaration, so as to make it clear that it is required by law ?

Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.

I have quoted it in the resolution.

Mr. ARTHUR S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).

On any occasion I would consider it an honour to have the opportunity of seconding this resolution, but I appreciate the distinction all the more since I have the honour of representing a constituency which formerly formed part of that which in 1820 secured, for the first time in the nineteenth century to a Roman Catholic a seat in a British legislature. It may be of some interest to the House that I should state the circumstances. In 1820, Mr. Richard John Uniacke, a Protestant, and Mr. Kavanagh, a Roman Catholic, were returned by the constituency of the county of Cape Breton to the legislature of Nova Scotia. Mr. Kavanagh was willing to take the oath of allegiance to the King, but he declined to violate his religious belief by subscribing to a declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation, and he was consequently not permitted to take his seat. His colleague, Mr. Uniacke, took up the battle in his behalf, and by means of the great influence which he wielded, had a petition adopted by the legislature addressed to the King, with the result that on April 3, 1823, when the next session of the legislature took place, Mr. Kavanagh was allowed to take his seat without subscribing to the objectionable declaration.

But the legislature of Nova Scotia did not stop there. A few years later, this same Mr. Uniacke, with the assistance of Mr. Haliburton, caused the following resolution to be adopted by the House :

That a committee be appointed to prepare a hnmble address to His Majesty, requesting that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to dispense with the declaration and test oath against Popery which His Majesty's subjects in this colony are called upon to take.

And let me say, Sir, that in a House of forty representatives-only one of whom was a Roman Catholic, the remaining thirty-nine being Protestants-this resolution passed unanimously. And in accordance with this resolution, a petition was forwarded a

few days later. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, X shall read a few paragraphs from the petition : -

We have already, under the sanction of Your Majesty's government, removed every restrictive law upon Your Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of this province, which has been followed by their gratitude; unwilling to pause, we would now solicit the gracious exercise of Your Majesty's prerogative for their additional benefit, and in compliance with the unanimous voice of your faithful Commons. We solicit that you would be graciously pleased to dispense with the ' declarations against Popery and transub-stantiation,' as inapplicable to the present situation of this country, and tending to create invidious distinctions among Your Majesty's loyal subjects.

Devoted to our duties as the representatives of Your Majesty's faithful Commons, we feel confident Your Majesty will accept this address. And when Your Majesty considers that) we appeal to heaven for the due fulfilment of our duties, and that we consecrate, by the sanctions of religion, our natural attachment to Your Majesty's person and government, Your Majesty will accept these our solemn pledges as adequate securities.

Confident of Your Majesty's favourable consideration of this address, your faithful Commons hope, eventually, that though at our several altars we may practice our several faiths, yet at that public altar where the spirit of our country presides, the only creed will be that of Christianity.

You will observe, Sir, that this petition sent some seventy-four years ago to the home government, was, in substance, the resolution now before the House. For my own part, 1 regret to say that my thoughts do not flow with sufficient ease, and I have not the resource in language to enable me adequately to express my conviction and sentiment on this matter-conviction and sentiments which, I believe, are shared by the overwhelming majority of the enlightened Protestants of this country. On the occasion to which I refer, Uniacke made the following exclamation :

When I look around, I think I scarce can discern the countenance of a bigot. Not one is there within these walls whose voice will not gladly concur in the prayer of this petition.

And, Sir, may we not hope that, in this boasted Canada of ours, three-quarters of a century after that resolution was passed in the legislature of Nova Scotia, the glorious nineteen century which has for its greatest boast that it has dissipated the ignorance of the dark places of the world with the lamp of knowledge and the teachings of the Prophet of Nazareth, a similar unanimity may be found to prevail ? May we not hope that in this Canadian parliament not one constituency in Canada has sent here a man who will not concur with the prayer of this petition. Sir, we do not ask for our Catholic citizens a favour, we only demand that a right which has been too long denied them shall be restored. For myself, I may Mr. KENDALL.

say, I am a Protestant of the Protestants, and I know I can say to my Iioman Catholic citizens, without fear of offence, that not under any conditions would I subscribe to many of the tenets of their faith. Yet, I would be unworthy of the position I occupy in this House, if I could not cheerfully stand up and demand for my fellow-citizens of another faith the right which, under similar circumstances, I should demand for myself. Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the House may, not unnaturally perhaps, expect from me, since it has fallen to my lot to be the first adviser of the Crown in this country, and to be entrusted with leadership of the House in its deliberations, that I should at once express the view which, in my opinion, ought to prevail upon the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan). Let me say at once-and to this I am sure-there will be no dissenting voice-this is not a question as to which there can be any party feeling; it is altogether apart from and beyond the scope of party controversies. Let me say also that it is not the intention of the government to make it a ministerial question. This is one of those matters which had better be left altogether to the judgment of every individual member to be voted upon, to be acted upon, either one way or the other according to his conception of what is best for the country and for the empire of which we form a part. Personally, I may say, I favour the resolution of my hon. friend, though, if I had had the drafting of it, perhaps, I should have expressed the prayer of it in somewhat different language. But, even with this, such as it is, I favour the motion ; and I have no doubt-that if this motion were accepted unanimously by this House, it would have a most beneficial effect for the peace and harmony of all creeds and all races not in this country only but though the whole British Empire. But the question will be asked : Why

should this resolution be introduced in this House ? It is not within our jurisdiction; it is not within our competence; we have no power to affect it one way or the other; at all events we have no power to affect it directly;. and, whatever may be our judgment or even our action upon it, it cannot have any effect as to its abiding force, for this is altogether within the purview of the parliament of Great Britain. Such an objection, if it had been made some twenty years ago would have had, no doubt, great force, and, perhaps, it would have been found to be valid. But, I submit that, in this year 1901, when Canada has attained the development she now has. such an objection has very little force, if it has any force at all. We have, on more than one occasion, affirmed our authority, affirmed

our right and privilege to act beyond out-legislative sphere, and to oiler to the Imperial authorities our views, and to make our representations upon questions which were not within our immediate domain, hut which affected British subjects in whole or in part. Thus, on one, two, and if I mistake not, three different occasions, this House passed resolutions in favour of home rule being granted to Ireland. Thus, at a later day, not yet twenty months ago, we passed a resolution of sympathy in favour of the Outlanders in the Transvaal. I am bound to say that, as a matter of history, at the outset, our representations were not accepted with any very great favour in England. I have a distinct recollection, which is shared, I am sure, by many of the members of this House that, we were told, in polite though frank language that we should confine our deliberations within our own sphere. That was years ago. Times have changed since then. Canada has progressed and developed since that time; and of late years, when we have chosen to offer to the Imperial authorities our views affecting, not Canadians, but British subjects in whole or in part, I am pleased to say that our representations have been met with favour and with courtesy. In order to make this point clear, let me recall what took place when we last offered our views to the Imperial authorities in 1899. The occasion was the unfortunate condition of things which then prevailed in the Transvaal, and on the 31st of July, in that year both Houses of this parliament passed the following resolution :

Resolved, that this House, representing a people which has largely succeeded by the adoption of the principle of conceding equal political rights to every portion of the population, in harmonizing estrangements and introducing general contempt with the existing system of government, desires to express its sympathy with the efforts of Her Majesty's Imperial authorities to obtain for the subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in the Transvaal such a measure of justice and political recognition as may be found necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and liberties.

This resolution did not meet with the disfavour which similar resolutions had received in former years ; it was accepted, not only as an act within our scope, within the sphere of our legitimate aspirations, but it was accepted with great favour, and the following reply was sent :

London, Aug. 22, 1899.

To the Governor General of Canada,

Ottawa.

I have received from the Speaker of the Senate and the House of Commons. Canada, copies of resolutions unanimously adopted by those Houses on August 1 and July 31, respectively, with regard to the present situation in South Africa.

Her Majesty's government will be glad if you will convey, on their behalf, acknowledg-rnents of those resolutions, together with an ,

expression of their appreciation of the support thus afforded to them in their efforts to secure eqfutl rights and liberties for all tha white inhabitants of the Transvaal.

This came directly from Her Majesty and was transmitted through the instrumentality of the Colonial Secretary. Now, Sir,

I would like, if possible, to approach this subject in a spirit wholly uncontroversial. and I put it in the sense of justice and of fairness on both sides of this House, that if our resolutions were thus appreciated in England, if we were not only permitted, but as it were, encouraged, to give an expression of our opinion and our sympathy in the efforts which were then being made by the Imperial authorities to secure justice and equal rights to a section of Her Majesty's subjects in a very distant land, why should not our efforts this day be accepted when they tend to relieve the conscience of at least twelve millions of His Majesty's most loyal subjects ? Only a few days ago Lord Salisbury had to speak upon the subject, and is reported by the Associated Press to have expressed himself in this way :

Lord Salisbury, in the House of Commons today, referring to the anti-Catholic declaration contained in the oath which King Edward took at the opening of parliament, said that though he deplored the language in which the declaration was couched, it must be remembered that the enactment represented the views and feelings of the period when it was adopted. The passions of the people now were not so strong, but there were undoubtedly parts of the country where the controversy whieh the declaration represented still flourished, and where the emotions which it produced had not died out.

I have no doubt whatever that these words of Lord Salisbury are true. I have have no doubt whatever that there are still portions of our fellow-countrymen in the old country and iu parts of this country where these emotions of two centuries ago still exist. The best reforms are always slow to come. Nobody expects that prejudices will disappear in one day, or even in one generation ; but if such a resolution as is now before you were adopted by this House, even if it had no other effect than to do away with such prejudices in the mind only of one of His Majesty's subjects, still I think this resolution would not have been adopted in vain.

With regard to the legislation which is mentioned in the motion in our hands, Mr. Speaker, and which is now almost two centuries old. I have to say no more than has been said by Lord Salisbury, that to say the least, it is deplorable. Such legislation would not be adopted now. It is repugnant to the spirit of this age, it is a remnant of those intolerant ages which for many centuries desolated Europe. It is a sad commentary upon our Christianity that for three centuries two of the leading

Mark the distinction.

-at the time of his or her taking the said [DOT]oath (which shaill first happen), make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration men-

tioned in the Statute made in the Thirtieth Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled ' An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's Person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.'

You see there that this declaration, which was enjoined upon the subjects of the King who happened to sit in the House of Lords, who happened to sit in the House of Commons, and who happened to be servants of the Crown, was extended to the King, and had to be taken as well by his subjects. Now, it is a matter of history that this oath, in so far as it applies to subjects of the King, has been long ago abolished. No peer of the * realm, no member of the House of Commons, no servant of the Crown, is bound to take the oath, but it is still enjoined upon the King, and it has been found quite consistent with the security of England to dispense the subjects of the King from taking that oath. It is still enjoined upoi! the King, and the object of my hon. friend from Victoria is to represent to the British Imperial authorities that this oath should be dispensed with by the King as well as it has been dispensed with by his subjects. Let this be acted upon, and there is nothing which guarantees the Protestant supremacy in England which will not still be in existence. I may be permitted to say, as a Roman Catholic subject, that this legislation in England is not altogether according to my views, but I know too well the temper of my fellow-countrymen, I know too well the necessity in which they are in England, to even offer the slightest objection, and for my part, I am quite content to be a subject of the Protestant King of England. All the disabilities which at one time affected Roman Catholics have been removed from the laws of Eugland ; they have been removed, and let me call the attention of the House of Commons to the severe struggle to achieve that result, and, against the objection, I am free to say, of many and many a man who thought that if Roman Catholics were admitted to civil and political rights, perhaps the liberties of England would be endangered. It is a well-known fact, for instance, that William Pitt long entertained the hope and wish to give Roman Catholics emancipation, but it is also a matter of history that George III. would not agree to it, and that Pitt died before he carried out this wish of his heart. In 185(1, the ministry of Lord Granville, in which Charles Pox was, took the matter up and attempted to bring in legislation for the emancipation of the Catholics, but the King, who, as we know, and as history tells us, was a good man, a pious man and a moral man, thought that the dignity of his Crown, and the liberties of his subjects would be endangered thereby, and he promptly dismissed his ministers. The matter was taken up again later on. and in 1829, at last, an Act was consum-2.3

mated, Catholics were emancipated, they were given civil rights, they were given political rights, and they were placed on the same footing as their fellow-subjects, but, we know that George IV., who was then sovereign, hesitated a long time before he signed the Act. We know that he was not like his father, either a good man, or a pious man, or a moral man ; still, he held the same views upon the subject, and it was only upon the strong remonstrances of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel that he finally agreed. Now, I would ask : Is there, amongst our fellow-countrymen of the Protestant religion, let him be ever so strong in his convictions, a mail who would not say to-day that it was a happy day for England when the Roman Catholics were granted emancipation ? Is there a man who would go back to the condition of things that prevailed up to that time ? Look at the services, which, in this country, and in this age, since 1829, have been rendered to the Crown and people of England by Roman Catholics, and you have the answer. Had not the Act of Catholic Emancipation been passed in 1829. England would not have had the services of the late Chief Justice of England, who was a Roman Catholic. And if there is one man to-day who has done more than, perhaps, any other during the last twenty years for the prestige of England in the Orient, that man is Lord Cromer, who, toy his services in Egypt, has rendered imperishable services to his country, and Lord Cromer is a Roman Catholic.

Let us look at the cause of all this exceptional legislation against Catholics, apart from the prejudices which existed at the time ; prejudices which were just as common then to Roman Catholics as to Protestants, and to Protestants as to Catholics. In the European civilization of that day these prejudices were common to both religions. Wherever Catholics had the power they persecuted Protestants; wherever Protestants had the power they persecuted Catholics, tout if you go to the bottom of this legislation in England, there is one thing which the English people had in their mind in passing all these laws, and that was that they would not have the Pope to rule in England. We need not mince matters ; it is just as well to go to the bottom of things. That was the thought in the minds of English Protestants. Time has dispelled many of the misconceptions as to the power of the Pope, and let me say here as a Roman Catholic of the twentieth century that the Pope has no authority or jurisdiction whatever in secular matters. His power and jurisdiction and authority are exclusively in spiritual matters, and we Catholics accept him as the power which has the final authority to pronounce upon all controversy in matters of faith and morals. Beyond that the Pope has no more authority than any

member of this House. He has no jurisdiction over secular matters in any shape or form, and Catholics do not claim that he has. Then, Sir, if these views are well understood and do prevail, it seems to me that there can be no reason whatever to maintain this legislation upon the statute-books of England.

I may be asked : Why should this declaration be removed from the law. It is simply because it is offensive. It is simply because it is painful to Roman Catholic subjects who honour their King, and are loyal to him; who are ready to fight and need be to die for his Crown ; it is painful to them that their King should take such an oath against dogmas which are dear and sacred to them. That is the reason ; the only reason. Sir, I do not desire to approach the subject in any controversial spirit. Whether this motion pass or does not pass ; whether if it is passed it is heeded or not heeded in England ; whether this oath is maintained or not maintained in the law ; the loyalty of Roman Catholics will not be affected thereby. They will continue to be as they are to-day, willing and cheerful subjects of His Majesty King Edward VII. and of his successors. But, Sir, it can be well admitted that the pride and devotion which we all take in this great empire which was the first refuge of liberty of conscience when liberty of conscience was still banished from the rest of the world ; would be enhanced and would be more enthusiastic if that legislation, the last remnant of persecuting ages, the last vestige of these ages of which I have spoken ; were to be blotted out for ever from the statute-books of free England.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussion which has taken place in the press of the United Kingdom, and in view of what has been said by men eminent in public life in the mother country, it seems to me highly probable that without any action on the part of this House the offensive portion of this declaration would probably be eliminated therefrom at a very early date. Therefore, I question very much the wisdom of the hon. gentlemen who have introduced this motion here, because the discussion of matters of this kind among men who have strong opinions either one way or the other is sometimes productive of more harm than good. As has been well said by the right hon. gentleman, this is a matter into which party consideration should not enter. This is a matter which should be above all party considerations and I, for one, as long as I have any voice in this House or in this country shall protest against any question of race or creed being introduced into the party politics of Canada.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

In what I am saying ; in what I am about to say I speak

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

entirely for myself, and I recognize that every hon. member of this House, whether he be on the one side or the other, must vote on this matter, according to his judgment and to his conscience.

The declaration is one which at first was not applied to the Sovereign of England at all. It was applied in the first place to peers and members of parliament, and the object of it was to prevent persons professing the Roman Catholic religion from sitting or voting in either House of Parliament in England. In the first place by the statute which is known as the Bill of Rights which was passed in 1689, it was set forth that this declaration should be taken and subscribed to by the King or Queen of the realm ; and by a further statute which is known as the Act of Settlement which was passed in the year 1700, it was provided :

That every King and Queen of this realm, who shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom by virtue of this Act shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them at their respective coronations according to the Act of parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary, entitled an Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath ; and shall make, subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited, mentioned or referred to In the manner and form thereby prescribed.

That brought into operation the words of this declaration as contained in the Act of 1662, passed the thirteenth year of Charles II.

As has been well said by the right hon. the Prime Minister, this is one of a series of statutes which two centuries ago imposed many disabilities upon Roman Catholics in Great Britain. These statutes have one after one been repealed, except in respect to one or two matters. In 1774, by an Act of the Irish parliament, Catholics were allowed to take a special oath of loyalty to the King. In 1778 an Act was passed for the relief of Catholic bishops and priests with respect to schools and with respect to the holding of property. In 1791 an Act was passed with respect to the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy and making a declaration against transubstantiation. In 1793 an Act was passed for the relief of Scotch Catholics with regard to the holding of property. In 1817 an Act was passed for the relief of officers of the army and navy, making it unnecessary for them to take oaths that were offensive to their religious belief ; and in 1829 was passed the Catholic Relief Act, which is well known to all the members of this House. The result is that this declaration remains as a declaration to be taken by the sovereign, that the sovereign of this country must under the law be a Protestant, and that two officers at least-the Lord Chancellor, who is supposed to be the keeper of the King's conscience, and I think the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland-are still by vir-

tue of the constitution required to he Protestants.

Now, the question I first ask myself with regard to this declaration is, in case it should he amended or abolished, whether the constitution establishing the Protestant succession to the Crown is in any way in danger. Looking, in the first place, at the Bill of Rights, and in the next place at the Act of Settlement, which recites the Bill of Rights, it seems to me that all those securities which are dear to the convictions of a great many people of this country are sufficiently safeguarded without this declaration. The Protestant succession to the Crown is affirmed and declared throughout both these Acts. By section 2 of the Act of Settlement, which recites the Bill of Rights, containing somewhat similar provisions, It is provided that the succession to the Crown must devolve upon persons of the Protestant faith. Section i) of the Bill of Rights deals with the possibility that a person otherwise entitled to succeed to the Crown might be in communion with or become reconciled to the Church of Rome, and in such case it provides that :

The Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

That is to say, if the Crown should descend to any person or persons to whom it should belong, and that person should enter into communion with the Roman Catholic church, or marry a Roman Catholic, the Crown should descend to the next in -descent, who should be a Protestant. The same is affirmed in the Act of Settlement, which also provides :

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England,as by law established.

It is therefore clear that without this declaration the succession to the Crown is by the two statutes I have quoted absolutely secured. Then it seems to me that it is a right thing and a proper thing, so far as this declaration contains matter which is offensive to the religious belief of any British subject, that it should be abolished or amended ; and I for one am prepared to state that in this House or before my constituents, or upon any public platform in this country.

The coronation oath which has been referred to by the right hon. leader of the government is another safeguard, and 1 also desire briefly to refer to that. The coronation oath, as adopted upon the accession of George II., and four successive sovereigns, and also, I believe, as used upon the accession of his present Gracious Majesty, is as follows :

Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the respective laws and customs ol' the same ?

I solemnly promise so to do.

Will you to your power cause law, and justice, and mercy, to he executed in all your judgments ?

I will.

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law ?

And so forth, and the King answers : ' All this I promise to do.'

Now, it is desirable that those of us in this country who are Protestants should look at this declaration from the standpoint which would be presented to us if the Roman Catholic faith were the established faith of this country, and if the 12,000,000 people who are now in the minority were Protestants. Would we not feel a sense of injustice if a King whom we loyally served, whom we were ready on all occasions loyally to serve, should be obliged on his accession to the Crown to make a declaration with respect to the Protestant faith which contained matter so offensive as that which is found in this declaration ? I ask my hon. friends all over this House who are of the same religious belief as myself to take that into consideration, and to say whether they would not feel like making some effort to have an injustice of that kind redressed ? And the feelings which would animate us in the ease which I have supposed are those which animate our Catholic friends throughout Canada. Therefore, although we may question the wisdom of introducing this matter into this House at this time, nevertheless we can well understand the feelings which animate hon. gentlemen in making this motion, and we can better appreciate the standpoint from which we should regard their action.

I do not desire to say very much further except with respect to the right of this House to pass any motion or tender any suggestion with regard to a subject of this kind which properly appertains to the Imperial parliament. The way that matter presents itself to me is that this parliament has, as has very truly been said, offered suggestions with regard to Imperial matters in the past. But, irrespective of all considerations of that kind, let us look at the question from another standpoint. No King, from William the Conqueror down, has ever become truly a King of England until he has taken the coronation oath, and made the declaration, if any, prescribed by law. He becomes King in the true sense of the word when he has done those two things. These are part of the compact between the Crown and the people. We are a portion of the British Empire. The compact which the

King makes with his people when he ascends the throne is a compact which he makes with us as well as with the people of the mother country ; and it seems to me that it might be competent for us in this House, without its being regarded as going beyond our legitimate sphere, to respectfully make a suggestion that that compact should not be expressed in terms which are offensive to a large body of the citizens of this country. It seems to me that in that way we might justify this resolution, although I do not disguise from myself the fact that it is a question upon which there may be a legitimate division of opinion in the House.

We all know how very slowly and painfully the world has learned the lesson of toleration in religious belief. We have seen how slowly even the institutions of our own country have permitted themselves to progress in that respect. I trust and believe that there is in Canada at present very little intolerance in respert of such matters, and that in the future there will be still less. We know that we have men in this House and country who hold strong opinions on one side or the other with regard to such matters. May I venture to express the hope that whatever views are advanced, whatever opinions are expressed on this question, they will be advanced and expressed in a generous and moderate spirit so as not to arouse any religious animosity which we all so much deprecate.

May I be allowed to make a suggestion to the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution, and the hon. gentleman who lias seconded it. I venture to think that the conclusion is a little inconsequent, having regard to what proceeds. The resolution sets out, in the first place, that:

As a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the equality of rights guaranteed to all British subjects in the Canadian confederation, as well as under the British constitution, a British sovereign should not be called upon to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.

Then the resolution sets out the declaration referred to and proceeds as follows :

That such declaration is offensive to the convictions of all Roman Catholics.

I am glad that the hon. the mover of the resolution has seen fit to alter his proposed motion with respect to the next paragraph, because he has amended the language of it at first presented. He proceeds to say :

That the staunch loyalty of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada and other British possessions should exempt them from any offensive reference to their religion by their sovereign.

It seems to me that we all might agree in the resolution so far. but what the motion proceeds to say is this :

That in the opjnion of this House the Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration.

Would it not be better for my hon. friends to consider whether that particular paragraph should not rather be amended in some way. If you logically follow the language that precedes this paragraph, all you would require to say would be this :

That, in the opinion of this House, from this declaration should be eliminated anything offensive to the religious belief of any subject of Her Majesty.

In all sincerity, and with every desire to prevent this matter becoming the subject of controversy, 1 would suggest to my hon. friend that he might very well consider this change, and, I hope, adopt it. He will remember that he has introduced his motion in such a manner that it is impossible to offer any amendment, and lie thus handicaps gentlemen in this House who are extremely anxious that this should not become a matter of controversy. He handicaps them by introducing his resolution in this particular way so that it cannot be amended. Therefore, it seems to me, that my hon. friends who moved and seconded the motion should be all the more ready to adopt some suggestion of this kind, which might express the views of hon. gentlemen who cannot bring their consciences to vote for the resolution exactly in the way in which it is framed. If my hon. friend should entertain that suggestion, and desires a little delay to consider it, I am sure there will be no objection in this House to concede him the delay he requires; but, I would trust and hope that he would not require much time to consider the suggestion I have made, and which I have made in the utmost possible good faith and sincerity.

I regret that I have trespassed so long on the attention of the House, and, as I have said before, I sincerely hope that this will not become a matter which will arouse any controversy in this House.

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).

I have listened with pleasure to the temperate and dispassionate address of the hon. the leader of the opposition, and I find in his remarks very little to criticise. The hon. gentleman has expressed a doubt-and I am free to confess that the same doubt has existed in my own mind-as to the propriety of introducing a resolution in a colonial legislature dealing with an Imperial question. We have, however, precedents for this course, and, I suppose that we have, as individuals, and in our collective legislative capacity, the right of competition.

The resolution offered by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) is simply a petition to the Throne asking for the redress of an alleged grievance; and even with the views I entertain on the propriety of

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

keeping strictly within our own sphere of action, I still do not realize that there is any particular incongruity or impropriety in the proposed action with regard to the declaration to he taken by the British sovereign that we are now considering.

The hon. the leader ol' the opposition informs us that this- declaration dates back from the year 1689, and prior to that time was required from peers, and members of the House of Commons, and that upon the occasion of the inauguration of William and Mary, it was, for the first time, required of a British sovereign. The hon. gentleman went on to inform us that from time to time these declarations and laws and other requirements of a similar character have been modified, and various individuals and officials and collections of individuals in the United Kingdom relieved of the obligation of making such declaration. This of course is an argument leading directly in the line suggested by the hon. member for Victoria, that the change should go further, the modification be made greater, and that as peers and members of the House of Commons. and other officials have been relieved from the necessity of making this declaration, the time has properly come to relieve the sovereigns of the British Empire from the same necessity.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions which existed when the obligation to take this declaration became law, if we consider them carefully and with a due degree of charity, will lead us to the conclusion that the step taken was, under the circumstances, a natural one. We must remember that when this declaration was taken by William and Mary, in 1689, it was at the end of eighty-six years of strife in England, eighty-six years of turmoil and internal dissension, eiglity-six years of attempts on the part of rulers to break down and override constitutional government and to destroy the liberties of the people, eighty-six years of persecution and the violation of human rights in almost every sense and particular. We must recollect the occurrences in the reign of Janies I., of Charles I., of Charles XI., and James II.-who was the mere pensioner of the King of France, who was the tool of the Papacy, who was determined to override the constitution and to destroy civil and religious liberty in the Kingdom of England. This condition of things led to the calling in of William and Mary and the passing of this drastic legislation that seems to us in this age so severe, so unnatural, so uncalled for and so unjustified. But, Sir, our forefathers who established these precedents in legislation are deserving a degree of consideration as to the circumstances under which they were led to take the action we are discussing to-day. The coming of William and Mary introduced a new order of things in England ; and in the 220 years since then, great changes have taken place. England at once assumed again under William and Mary the position she had occupied for a brief period under Cromwell, when she commanded the respect of the world and was a factor in human affairs. She became a great power and has continued to be a great power, disseminating the blessings of civilization, enlightenment and religion not only over the British Isles, but over vast territories of the earth. And the curse of things in these 220 years has brought us an evolution of conditions which leaves us hardly able to realize the state of public sentiment that existed at the time the legislation that we have under consideration was placed upon the statute-book. As evidence of this change in public sentiment among the English-speaking people we have the Treaty of Paris to secure to the inhabitants of French Canada their rights under the Napoleon code, their rights as Catholics, their rights as a French Canadian people. We have the erection of the great republic of the United States, where all recognition of religion is carefully avoided, and where it required a decision of the United States Supreme Court to establish the fact that it was a Christian nation. It is a nation where no oath with regard to religious belief, no conditions with regard to religious belief are possible; where the Christian, the Jew, the agnostic, the Mo-hommedan, the Pagan, all stand on the same footing before the law and receive the same protection from the law. And we have this condition of things which has gone on from year to year, from generation to generation, so that it resulted, in 1829, in the Emancipation Act which removed the disabilities from Catholics. And the last relic of the condition of things that existed at that time is this very declaration that we now have under consideration. We can hardly realize the intense bitterness, the animosity that existed between various classes in the days to which I have referred. The Catholic persecuted the Protestant ; the Protestant persecuted the Catholic; the Protestant persecuted the Protestant-Cla-verhouse, the envoy and agent of the papacy of England harried with fire and sword the covenanters of Scotland, the Puritans fled from the persecution that went on in the old land, and established their institutions in New England and they, in their turn, persecuted the Baptists and burned witches- all sects, all nationalities, all classes were imbued with the spirit of bitterness, of vindictiveness and animosity that could make uo allowances for differences of opinion, but must make the world pronounce its own shibboleth and conform to its own views.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come, as I said a moment ago, for taking a step in Canada that will, at least, place upon record the views of the Canadian House of Commons as to the propriety of removing the last relic of the condition of things that existed at the time to which I refer. Of course. I wish to define my position

as a Protestant. In making this declaration I do not wish it to he understood that I subscribe to any doctrine that is denounced in this coronation declaration. I do not wish it to be understood that I believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, for I hold to the old declaration of the Puritan Divine, who defined the Lord's Supper as being a sacrament established by Christ in which the use of the bread and wine set forth his death, and that these elements were partaken of not in a carnal manner, but by faith, and the use of these elements was made to represent the death of Christ. I believe that that beautiful simple ceremony that was established by our Master at the end of the last Passover Feast he celebrated, when he commanded his disciples to take the bread and wine and use them in remembrance of him, did not warrant the doctrine of transubstantiation, for he was there to dispense the elements. I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the worship of saints or the Virgin, for I remember the words of Christ, ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only thou shalt serve.' And I remember Paul at Lystra who refused adoration from those upon whom he had exercised miraculous power. But these are matters of differences in doctrine. The belief in transubstantiation does not deny the divinity of Christ. The belief in the worship of the Virgin does not deny the sovereignty of Christ and the existence of an overruling Providence. But it is a farfetched conclusion and unjustifiable to characterize those who believe in these doctrines as idolators. While, as a Protestant, I do not believe in them, I say that the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Cos-tigan) has a right to believe in them-and he may as well be right as I, for neither of us is infallible. I have no right, nor has the government any right, to stamp him with the odious name of idolater because he happens to differ from me in matters of doctrinal belief. Therefore, I say, sweep these things away. As a Protestant, I do not say I believe these things are true, but I say that the hon. gentleman has as good a right to believe them as I have a right to believe the doctrines which I hold.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the existence of religious and civil liberty is the basis upon which our institutions rest. The existence of religious liberty is incompatible with stating any conditions, or denouncing any belief on the part of the law or on the part of the rulers of the country. If wo are to have religious liberty, we shall find such a declaration as the one we have under consideration entirely incompatible with the exercise of that right. If we are to build up the institutions of this country upon a foundation of religious liberty, we must eliminate from our laws all conditions, all declarations, all statutes that are inconsistent with that principle ; and it is proper, it is necessary, it is imperative, Mr. CHARLTON.

if we are to hold to the doctrines of religious liberty, that a declaration which requires the sovereign of Great Britain to declare that the man who believes in transsubstantiation and in the worship of the Virgin Mary, is an idolater, should be swept away, or we have no claim to possess institutions which rest upon civil and religious liberty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is always a good idea to ' put yourself in his place,' if you are going to arrive at a conclusion as to whether your antagonist is right or wrong. I have asked myself the question : What would be my feelings if the conditions were reversed ? What would be my feelings, if as a Presbyterian or as a Protestant, my coreligionists were in the minority and the Church of Rome was in the majority, and a clause was put into the coronation declaration of the sovereign of the realm which declared me, and those believing as I do, to be idolaters ? Would it be relished by me ? Would it be relished by those who believe as I do ? Would it be just ? Would it be warranted under the circumstances and under the institutions and laws of this country ? It would not be warranted, it would be unjust, it would be trampling ujjon my rights, it would be a declaration that I would resent, it would be a declaration that I would fight to remove.

I do not look upon this question from my own standpoint alone. I turn to the hon. member for Victoria and 1 say, that while-his belief is different from mine, while this odious designation of idolater does not rest upon me and does rest upon him, it would be equally unjust if the ease were reversed, and he was placed in a position relieved from the odious declaration, and I was subjected to it. For this reason I believe iu giving others that which we would claim for ourselves ; I believe in giving to our Catholic fellow-citizens that justice which we ourselves would claim if we were placed in the position which they occupy. I do not believe in pressing a cup of bitterness to the lips of any of His Majesty's loyal subjects.

I believe, Sir, that the existence of this declaration has very much to do with the unrest that exists in Ireland, and that the removal of this declaration, the removal of the last remnant of those .ages of hatred, of refusal to respect religious rights, of refusal to tolerate differences of opinion, ot refusal to listen to anything but our own shibboleth-I say I believe the removal of this last relic of those old intolerant ages would have a most beneficial effect upon the pacification of Ireland, and would have a good effect upon our French Canadian fellow-citizens, who must feel themselves aggrieved in consequence of their sovereign being required to take the declaration under discussion. As a Protestant who would stand to the utmost and to the last for the vindication of his principles, I do not ask

for tlie retention of a condition with regard to others which I would spurn and resist with regard to myself. For this reason, I believe that the motion of my hon. friend amended in any way that he should choose to amend it, should pass.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the point which I spoke of at the opening of my remarks, and that is the only difficulty I feel in relation to this matter. I approve of the resolution per se; I have some doubts yet as to the propriety of this legislative body presuming to pronounce an opinion upon a matter pertaining to Imperial interest, Imperial legislation and Imperial affairs. As I said at the outset, I think we may be justified in doing this upon the ground that we have the right of petition, upon the ground that we are British subjects, subjects of a King whom we petition, that we are British subjects who are affected by this condition as much as if we were living in England ; and the expression of our opinion on this matter surely will not be considered an impertinence, and surely will do no harm in the ultimate settlement of the matter which we have under our consideration to-day.

Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).

I have always regretted that questions of religion should be brought to the attention of this House of Commons. There is no reason, in my judgment, why it should be so. We have enormous questions to deal with. We have the business of building up a great nation in the British possessions on this North American continent, a work which taxes the resources of the ablest minds in the Dominion of Canada. But, from time to time, we have these religious or racial questions thrust upon the attention of the House of Comomns, calculated to provoke strife and discord and those feelings which we know by experience produce no good results.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the mover of the resolution (Mr. Costigan). He has, during my experience, never made a speech in this House of Commons calculated to promote the advancement and prosperity of this Dominion. Every speech, during the long period that I have been here, made by him has been on racial or religious lines, and calculated to provoke that very strife which we should seek to avoid, and to avoid which he tells us that he has in view in bringing up this question. Why, Sir, from the earliest days when the hon. member for Victoria was a member of this House of Commons, he brought in religious questions which disturbed the House of Commons, but which were relegated, as they should have been, to the province of New Brunswick, where they were settled amicably, because they belonged to the province of the New Brunswick legislature. At a later period, in 1882. I remember, the hon. member for Victoria

brought in a resolution about Home Rule. In a few observations that I made upon that occasion, I ventured to say that the member for Victoria was trying to boom himself for position, and force himself into the government of the day. He got up and with the greatest vehemence denied the imputation ; but the result was that within a very few weeks afterwards he was made a minister of the government of Canada. Is he afraid to-day that the mantle of oblivion is falling upon him again, and is it because he wants the people to know that he is still alive and a member of the House of Commons, that he has brought up another religious question for our consideration ?

I listened with a good deal of interest, also, to the right hon. the First Minister, the supposed beneficiary, the intended beneficiary, if any beneficiary there be outside the member for Victoria himself, of the proposition made to-day. The right hon. First Minister had cuteness enough and power enough to prevent this question coming before the House of Commons in 1900, because an election was pending at that time, and the First Minister did not want this question brought up then..

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Order.

Mr. WALLACE.

What is the matter ? He had, I say, sufficient influence and authority then to prevent that question coming up for consideration in the House of Commons, because an election was coming on at that period. To-day he is not satisfied with the power that he has, and the solidarity that he has acquired in the province of Quebec, and he feels that he requires something more to strengthen his position in that province. I think he should be satisfied, and more than satisfied, with his handy-work, and the handy-work of his colleagues in the province of Quebec. In reference to myself. I have always protested against questions of this kind coming up for consideration in the House of Commons. Even when my own political friends in recent years, thought it the proper thing, I protested against their course. I do so to-day. I believe that when we review all. the circumstances we should carefully and cautiously proceed in a matter of this kind, and better still, I think we should take no position at all. If a wrong has been inflicted, the British government and the British parliament are strong enough, fair enough and generous enough, and have the instinct of doing right sufficiently to remove any wrong that may exist in that regard. They tell us that the language of this declaration is very strong. So it is, Mr. Speaker. It deals in very strong language with the question that is now before the House for discussion; it deals with it very straight-

ly. The language is strong in the declaration that the King of England has to make, and which he has to make, either on the first day of the first session of the parliament, after he comes to the Throne, or upon taking the coronation oath. He has, I presume, with the advice of his government, chosen to have that declaration made upon the first day, and not to wait for the coronation which will take place some time in the future. He has made that declaration. There is no question to-day as to how it will affect the present King of England. The only person it will affect will be his successor in office, and we all pray that another occasion for making this declaration may not arise for a long long time to come. I have said that the declaration to be made by the King of England is a very strong one. Well, Sir, it is not the only strong expression that obtains to-day. I listened to our good friend the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who in his vigorous language said that if you must call them idolaters, referring to our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, it is unfair, and that if he were one he would resent it, and fight to have it removed. He did not believe in pressing the cup of bitterness to his neighbour's lips. Our good friend tells us this afternoon that he is a member of the Presbyterian Church. We know that he is a distinguished dignitary of that church ; he not only performs the duties of the layman, hut, I believe, he gets into the pulpit too, and preaches the gospel. We admire him for it, and we hope that he practices what he preaches. The church of which he is such a distinguished member have also views upon this question. The views held by the Presbyterian Church upon this question are in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, page 109

Mr. MACLEAN.

Which edition ?

Mr. WALLACE.

The edition that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) does not know very much about. The distinguished gentleman who has just spoken in this House, and who is such an ornament of the church to which he belongs, will find on page 109 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, endorsed. by two parliaments, one of the articles of the doctrine that he has to subscribe to before he gets into that pulpit. The hon. gentleman speaks of calling them idolaters ; I may be mistaken, I speak subject to correction, but I submit that the oath does not call any class idolaters, but it calls certain things idolatrous and superstitious. Here is what the hon. member i or North Norfolk and that great and distinguished body of ministers of this country, belonging to the Presbyterian Church of Canada, say in regard to this question :

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antiChrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exhalted himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.

Oh, oh.

Mr. WALLACE.

I was waiting to hear the hon. member for North Norfolk get up and say that that was the doctrine of his church, and that he would stand by it.