Reversing the questions in order, I will take up first the one of whether or not, as a succursale, St. Jacques Church is entitled to registers.

Is that Church a succursale? Is it such as contemplated by the 18th Victoria?

What is a succursale Church? Guyot (Répertoire) tells us.

As I understand it, a succursale to Notre Dame de Montréal would be a church in the Parish of Notre Dame; but the Church of St. Jacques is a démembrement from the Parish of Notre Dame, and is itself Parish Church of a new parish canonical, which PARISH (by the Décrêt Canonique) is made succursale of Notre Dame.

The 18 Vic. does not allow registers to a Parish called succursale, but only to succursales Church or Churches, in the Parish of Notre Dame, depending upon the Parish Church of Notre Dame.

The 18 Vict. has in view succursales churches in the Notre Dame de Montreal Parish existing in 1855; it does not seem to have thought of succursale parish or parishes, which we never before have heard of in Lower Canada. By priest of succursales churches of 18, Vic., never was meant curé of parish independent of Notre Dame. Look at who got and how were Registers in 1864 gotten for succursales churches in this very Parish of Notre Dame. The curé of the Parish of Notre Dame got them "pour servir à l'enregistrement des Actes des Baptèmes, Mariages et Sépultures qui se feront dans telle église-(for instance, dans l'Eglise St. Patrice) dans la dite Paroisse."

In a succursale Church proper, the service is by the Curé of the Mother Parish, or priest appointed by him; the Church is really a dependency of the Mother Church. But the Décrêt before me deprives partly the Curé of Notre Dame of his cure; for the new parish is to be desservie by its particular Curé named by the Bishop; (for instance, in the case of St. Jacques, Mr. Mercier is named to be Curé of St. Jacques.)

I pass now to the other point. As I have said before, it is claimed by the Petitioner that the Church of St. Jacques is entitled to registers from the mere fact of being Parish Church of a Roman Catholic canonical parish.

The ecclesiastical authority to canonically erect parishes cannot be questioned, but certain forms must be observed; else such erection canonical certainly can have no civil effects. Civil recognition can be obtained only as per consolidated St. L. C. Cap. 18, or a particular act of Parliament.

The Civil Government alone has the power to give, by its approbation, civil effects to canonical erections. The form is well known; a proclamation by the Governor confirming a report of the commissioners named by the civil authority. The Civil Courts do not take notice of a mere canonical erection of parishes. Nobody will deny that the civil authority may impose what conditions and forms it pleases as conditions precedent, without fulfilling which no parish will be recognized au civil, and that this may be and co-exist with perfect freedom of religion and exercise of religion.

There are various kinds of parishes,-Chap. 19, of Cons. St. of L. C., shows it.-See its Sec. 2. There are parishes not "recognized by the civil law," and others that are. It is perfectly plain what are "recognized by the civil law," those of Chap. 18, Cons. St. L. C., Sections 10 to 15 inclusive.

This has been

When constituted (after canonical erection,) parish civil, "in the manner by law provided," but not before, will a mere canonical parish be recognized by the civil law and law courts. When, in the Civil Courts, we talk of a parish, we mean parish that civilly we are bound to recognize. The Civil Courts recognize no parishes but civilly erected ones. our invariable habit, and it was not necessary in the Municipal Code to define parish as "any territory erected into parish by the civil authority." The definition was inserted ex majore cautela. By "each Roman Catholic Parish Church," in the Code Civil, Art. 42, can be meant only such churches as are civilly recognized. So by "each Parish Church," &c., in Cap. 20, of Cons. Stat. of L. C., is meant each such church as we recognize civilly, in other words Parish Church such as of cap. 18, Cons. Stat. of L. C., Sec. 15. When civilians are writing a Statute we presume them, knowing the Law Civil, to use words to accord with the legislation of the Law Civil. Registers-keeper is an officer of the Civil authority. I can't see appointment of such officer in a parish not to be noticed civilly, according to the décrêt; not to be noticed civilly till so and so has been done, according to the Civil Law.

But we must not lose sight of the question before us, which is not so much the general one, whether all parishes erected merely canonically have right to registers such as asked; but whether, in this particular case, the Parish of St. Jacques, as erected canonically, lying within the enceinte of Notre Dame

Parish and erected with the qualifications I have before referred to and the reservations in favor of the original Parish of Notre Dame that are stated in the Décrêt Canonique, is entitled to separate and independent Parish Registers. The Décrêt states. that it has "pour but que le bien spirituel des âmes."

All the rights au civil, that the Parish of Notre Dame had, it shall preserve 66 as if démembrement had not been," says the Décrêt. It follows that it is to preserve its registers, and that au civil these shall be kept, as before the décrêt, by the curé, civil officer, for that purpose. As I interpret the law, and the décrêt canonique itself, I cannot name M. Mercier as curé of St. Jacques, to keep registers within the territory of the Parish of Notre Dame, civilly erected.

M. Mercier has failed to show a right, or title in any way, to claim from me that I should parapher or attest register, or registers, for St. Jacques parish or church. He is not entitled to registers as curé of a parish merely canonical, made by a démembrement from Notre Dame, such as operated by the décrêt canonique of 1866. He is not so entitled as curé of St. Jacques parish, though it be said to be succursale to Notre Dame. Real succursales have existed in this Parish of Notre Dame, and had their registers, and upon the same conditions as formerly, such churches can command them again, but only upon demand of the curé of the parish.

M. Mercier's petition is rejected, but I will say without costs.

THE UNION ST. JACQUES" CASE.

At last, in the case of L'Union St. Jacques and Bélisle, decided on the 19th day of September last, the power of Courts of Justice to pronounce upon constitutional questions has been acknowledged by the Court of Appeals of the Province of Quebec. In the previous cases of Dixon and Coote, the Judges expressed more or less doubt as to their jurisdiction in these matters; but we are pleased to notice that the majority of the Court has since come to the opposite conclusion. The importance of this decision, which fully supports the views often advocated in La Revue Critique, has induced La Rédaction to publish in full the opinions of the judges. It is true that the Provincial Government has appealed from this judgment to the Privy Council, in England; nevertheless, we do not believe that this appeal is serious so far as the jurisdiction of courts of justice is concerned.

LA RÉDACTION.

CARON J., dissenting: L'acte d'incorporation dont il s'agit est un acte extraordinaire dans lequel ont été insérées les clauses et conditions demandées par ceux qui demandaient l'incorporation, laquelle ésait régulière et que la législature du jour avait bien droit d'accorder.

Les clauses et conditions ainsi accordées et imposées, nul doute que la Législature, qui le faisait, pouvait les changer et modifier à la demande des parties intéressées.

Ainsi, sans l'acte Impérial sur lequel se fonde l'intimée, et sur lequel est appuyé le jugement dont est appel, la Législature qui avait passé cet acte d'incorporation pouvait bien lui faire les changements que notre Législature Locale y a faits et dont se plaint l'intimée, les droits acquis sur lesquels elle se fonde n'auraient pas empêché l'exercice de ce droit de faire les change.

ments.

Cela étant, se présente la question de savoir si l'Acte Impérial contient quelque disposition qui ôte à notre Législature Locale le droit de faire les dits changements.

Je suis d'avis que non. En passant l'acte dont se plaint l'intimée, l'on a pas touché aux lois de banqueroute sous l'empire desquelles, la société en question n'est jamais tombée Il parait

absurde de prétendre qu'une société, fondée dans le but de celleci, soit de nature à se trouver en banqueroute ou en faillite. Non, cette société de bienfaisance, fondée dans le but de pouvoir aux besoins des pauvres membres qui en font partie, s'est aperçue, après quelques années d'expérience, que les conditions qu'on leur avait imposées sur leur demande étaient trop oné-reuses, et détruiraient la société et le but qu'on se proposait en la fondant; et alors les membres ont demandé à la Législature de faire les changements qu'ils ont suggérés, de nature a remédier à l'état de malaise et d'embarras dans lequel elle se trouvait. La Législature locale en accordant ce qui était demandé n'a sûrement pas touché aux lois générales, réglant la faillite, la banqueroute et l'insolvabilité; c'est un acte particulier qui n'a rien de commun avec les lois générales sur ces différents sujets..

Quand même, il en serait autrement, et que, de fait, l'acte en question aurait trait à cette sorte de loi, rien ne constate que la société qui demandait la passation de cet acte, était vraiment dans un état de faillite et de déconfiture; ce n'était pas se déclarer dans un tel état que de demander des changements de nature à améliorer sa position.

Chaque jour l'on voit des corporations demander à la Législature des changements, des amendements à leur charte, sans qu'il pût venir en tête à qui que ce soit de prétendre que c'était un signe de faillite ou de déconfiture.

Il en est de même dans le cas actuel. La société a représenté que les obligations qu'elle doit remplir sont onéreuses et peuvent entraver sa prospérité et sa durée; mais ce n'est pas là alléguer qu'elle soit dans un état de déconfiture.

Je renverserais donc le jugement et renverrais l'action de la demanderesse?

Lors de la nouvelle audition qu'a eu lieu en eette cause, l'on a suggéré que c'était moins par suite du statut impérial que la Législature locale était sans juridiction sur le sujet dont il s'agit,. mais que c'était parceque l'acte d'amendement, fait par la législature locale, contient une déviation aux droits conférés aux membres de la société St. Jacques par leur acte originaire d'incorporation; qu'en vertu de cet Acte, l'intimé avait des droits acquis auxquels l'acte d'amendement portait atteinte, ce qui le rendait nul en autant que l'intimée était concernée.

Cette prétention me parait outrée; si elle était admise, les banques et autres sociétés, une fois incorporées, ne pourraient