1 Brown v. Les Curé et Marguilliers de l'oeuvre et de la Fabrique de la Paroisse de Montréal. The opinion of the trial judge, Justice Mondelet, is contained in Affaire Guibord: Question de Refus de Sépultre. Rapport de la Cause avec la Texte du Jugement de Son Honneur le Juge Mondelet (Montreal: la Minerve, 1870).Google Scholar Mondelet's judgment is appended to the end of this report, and its pages are numbered separately, from 1–17. References to this judgment will hereinafter be cited as “Mondelet.” Mondelet's judgment was reversed by the Court of Review (1870), 2 La Révue Légale 257, hereinafter cited as Brown (Ct. of R.) This decision was affirmed in 1871 by the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side (1873), 17 L. C. J. 89, hereinafter cited as Brown (1871), which was in turn reversed by the J.C.P.C. in 1874(1874–75), 31 L.T.R. 555, hereinafter cited as Brown (1874).

2 Brassard v. Langevin (1876)2Q.L.R. 323 (Cour Supérieure). Rev'd(1877), 1 S.C.R. 145. Hamilton v. Beauchesne (1877), 2 Q.L.R. 75 (Cour D'Election, 1876).

3 See Mathie, William, “Justice and the Question of Regimes in Ancient and Modern Political Philosophy: Aristotle and Hobbes,” this Journal 9 (1976), 449–63Google Scholar.

4 See, for example, The Times of London, September 21, 1875, reproduced in Clarke, Lovell, The Guibord Affair (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), 104.Google ScholarThe Guibord Affair is an extremely useful collection of newspaper articles relating to all aspects of the case, and representing every point of view. I owe much to this collection, and to Clarke's excellent introductory essay.

5 Ibid., 7.

6 Laurier's 1877 speech on “Political Liberalism,” in Ulric Barthe, Wilfrid Laurier on the Platform (Quebec: Turcotte and Menard, 1890) 68–69Google Scholar.

7 Affaire Guibord, 8–30.

8 See note 1 above.

9 Brown (Ct. of R.).

10 Brown (1871).

11 Brown (1874).

12 Brown (1871), 105. Brown (Ct. of R.), 272.

13 Brown (1874), 560.

14 Ibid., 563.

15 Brown (Ct. of R.), 262–63. Mondelet, 12. See also the comment on this matter in the Joint Pastoral Letter issued by the bishops of Quebec on September 22, 1875, in Mandements, Lettres Pastorales, Circulaires et Autres Documents Publiés dans le Diocèse de Montréal depuis son Erection (Montreal: J. A. Plinguet, 1887), 216Google Scholar. The court might have avoided this problem by emphasizing the fact that, unlike in most cemeteries in Lower Canada, where the whole portion set aside for ecclesiastical burial was consecrated at once, the graves in this particular cemetery were consecrated separately at the time of burial. On this basis it might have been argued that Guibord could be buried in that part of the cemetery set aside for ecclesiastical burial, but that in this case the consecration of the grave could be foregone. The court, however, did not choose to rest its case on such an argument. Indeed, the judges appeared to concede that they were ordering burial in consecrated ground even in this cemetery, despite its exceptional character: “Neither portion of the cemetery is consecrated as a whole; but it is the custom to consecrate separately each grave in the larger part, never in the smaller or reserved part. The cemetery is thus practically divided into a part in which graves are, and into a part in which they are not, consecrated.” Brown (1874), 556. Emphasis suppliedGoogle Scholar.

16 Brown (1874), 563.

17 See below, 323, note 21.

18 Brown (1871), 107. See also the True Witness and Catholic Chronicle of Montreal (December 3, 1869), in Clarke, The Guibord Affair, 35.

19 Brown (1874), 560–61.

20 Mondelet, 13–14.

21 Brown (1874), 561.

22 It was seen as such by the bishops in the September 22 Pastoral, Mandements, 216: “On dira peut-être que la privation des honneurs de la sépulture écclésiastique emporte une dégradation et une infamie, et qu'ainsi considérée elle est du ressort de l'autorité civile chargée de protéger l'honneur des citoyens….”

23 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 137Google Scholar.

24 Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, Jay, John, The Federalist Papers, ed. by Rossiter, Clinton (New York: The New American Library, 1961), 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Mondelet, 12.

26 Brown (1874), 557.

27 Quoted in Wade, Mason, The French Canadians (revised edition; Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 353–54Google Scholar.

28 The Legislature, in accordance with the wishes of the church, subsequently passed a law making it clear that decisions about the place of burial were exclusively those of the church. See Gait, Alexander, Church and State (Montreal: Dawson Brothers, 1876), 26Google Scholar.

29 Mondelet, I.

30 Jaffa, Harry V., Equality and Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 78Google Scholar.

31 Laurier, quoted in Barthe, Wilfrid Laurier, 72.

32 Quoted in Wade, The French Canadians, 436.

33 My understanding of this shift in the history of political philosophy, and its implications for representative and party government, owes much to the writings of Mansfield, Harvey J. Jr, particularly the following: “Party Government and the Settlement of 1688,” American Political Science Review 58 (1964), 933–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Modern and Medieval Representation,” in Pennock, Roland (ed.), Representation (Nomos 10) (New York: Atherton Press, 1968)Google Scholar; “Hobbes and the Science of Indirect Government,” American Political Science Review 65 (1971), 97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Impartial Representation,” in Goldwin, Robert (ed.), Representation and Misrepresentation (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968)Google Scholar.

34 For a more modern Canadian expression of this theme see Trudeau, P. E., Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), 114–15Google Scholar.

35 See House of Commons Debates, March 3, 1896, 2736–59; Rumilly, Robert, Mgr. Laflèche et son Temps (Montreal: B. D. Simpson, 1945), 363–78Google Scholar; Willison, John, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal Party (Toronto: G. N. Morang, 1903), IIGoogle Scholar, 242ff.

36 Jaffa, Harry V., Crisis of the House Divided (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1973), 335Google Scholar.

37 For an argument that today's dispute between liberalism and Quebec nationalism constitutes a modern, albeit somewhat more formal, version of this conflict between “regime” and “anti-regime” see Knopff, Rainer, “Language and Culture in the Canadian Debate: The Battle of the White Papers,” forthcoming in The Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism (1979)Google Scholar; and “Democracy vs. Liberal Democracy in the Parti Québécois: The Nationalist Conundrum,” forthcoming in The Dalhousie Review.