28
disappeared, and we are confronted with a near and ominous future. The past was bright with actions and declarations all significant of equality of creeds; of liberty of thought and deed; the entire separation of Church from State was solemnly entered on the Statute Book; the Roman Catholic Church reposed on the guarantees granted by the British Crown; it was not aggressive, it meddled not with political strife, it pretended to no superior rights over other Churches, and though it was as a rule favorable to the conservative party, it never presumed to dictate to the leaders of that party, their political course. All this has changed, and we look in vain for that independence of thought and action which characterized our former French Canadian leaders, in those who have since Confederation administered the Government of Quebec. The party may be called the same, but I fail to recognize it, and few will do so who know that that party was created and led by those wiser minds, who retrieved themselves from the false step of the insurrection of 1837-'8, and afterwards led the way in all the necessary Liberal measures that followed the union of Upper and Lower Canada; the settlement of the Clergy Reserves—the abolition of the Feudal Tenure—the introduction of the municipal system—the establishment of National Education, and a host of other beneficent measures. These were the men who, understanding the mighty difference between Reform and Revolution, paused when their goal was attained, and became the Conservative party to which I had the pride and pleasure to belong. Can any one say that the present men are their successors in aught but name? Can words more expressive of profound submission to the Priesthood be found than the language used in the debate on the Address by their leader in the House of Commons, Mr. Masson, sustained, as it was, by Mr.
