"A relic of religious barbarism": the controversy over the Royal Declaration Against Transubstantiation.

McEvoy, Frederick J.

The British monarch, upon ascending the throne, was required by law to make a declaration denouncing the doctrine of transubstantiation and declaring the mass and devotion to Mary and the saints as idolatrous. This was extremely offensive to Catholics. In 1899 Father Michael Fallon of Ottawa began a campaign within Canada to have the British government abolish the declaration. Though unsuccessful at the time, the issue was raised again in 1901, after Edward VII reluctantly made the declaration following his succession to the throne. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to urge the British government to take action. This was widely welcomed not only by Catholics but also by the majority of the non-Catholic and secular press, with the Orange Order being the primary opponent. This response showed a distinct lessening of Catholic-Protestant tensions. Opinion in Canada and elsewhere in the Empire made a strong impression in Britain, but it was not until George V succeeded his father in 1910 that the offensive language of the declaration was removed by act of the British parliament. This episode sheds light on the imperial context for the evolving relationship between Catholics and Protestants in Canada.

A son ascension au trone, le monarque britannique devait, en vertu de la loi, prononcer une declaration denoncant la doctrine de la transsubstantiation et professant que la messe ainsi que Vadoration de la Vierge et des saints etaient de l'idolatrie. Ceei etait extremement offensif pour les catholiques. En 1899, lepere Michael Fallon d'Ottawa a entrepris une campagne au Canada pour que le gouvernement britannique abolisse cette declaration. Cette tentative infructueuse a l'epoque a ete reprise en 1901, apres d'Edward VII a prononce cette declaration a contrecceur apres son ascension au trone. La Chambre des communes a vote massivement pour presser le gouvernement britannique d'agir. Ceci fut non seulement bien accueilli par les catholiques, mais aussipar la majorite de non-catholiques et la presse seculaire, l'Ordre d'Orange etant le principal groupe a s'y opposer. Cette reaction illustrait une baisse des tensions entre catholiques et protestants. Les opinions au Canada et ailleurs dans VEmpire ont fait grande impression en Grande Bretagne, mais ce n 'est que lorsque George V a succede a son pere en 1910 que le langage offensif de la declaration a ete elimine en vertu d'une loi du Parlement britannique. Cet episodefait lumiere sur le contexte imperial des relations en evolution entre les catholiques et les protestants au Canada.

**********

As Queen Victoria aged and the nineteenth century turned into the twentieth, the prospect of the accession of a new monarch loomed. This was problematic for Roman Catholics, as the law required the monarch upon accession to take an oath known as the Declaration Against Transubstantiation. Often referred to as the Coronation Oath, in reality it was an addition to that oath. Either at the coronation or in the House of Lords at the opening of the first parliament of the reign, whichever occurred first, (2) the monarch swore: "I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine in the body and blood of Christ ... 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." The monarch also swore that the declaration was made "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." (3) Arising from the religious turmoil of the seventeenth century, the Declaration was meant to ensure that no Catholic could sit on the throne or in parliament. Catholic Emancipation in 1829 excused parliamentarians, but not the monarch, from making the declaration. (4)

The inference that Mariolatry and devotion to the saints and, especially, the belief in Transubstantiation were grossly idolatrous, and that the pope sought temporal powers and followers who could not think for themselves deeply offended Roman Catholics. It remained a staple of anti-Catholicism well into the twentieth century. (5) In Canada Father Michael F. Fallon, the former vice-rector of the University of Ottawa and future bishop of London, Ontario--already a well-known controversialist--raised the topic in December 1898. At the time, he was pastor of St. Joseph's Parish, which was adjacent to the University of Ottawa campus. (6)

During a sermon on 4 December he briefly denounced the declaration as insulting to Catholics. The next day the Ottawa Journal reported what he had said. (7) The comment was a small part of the sermon and Fallon "little imagined that it would be ever heard of again." However, on 12 December several British newspapers published a cablegram detailing his remarks on the declaration. Letters in the London Daily Post and the Tablet--a leading Catholic weekly--supported his views. On 17 December the Liverpool Catholic Times commented: "We think this declaration is permitted to remain because the Catholics of the Empire are too tolerant. If the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland and Canada and the colonies declared with one voice that it must go, it would." When friends sent Fallon copies of these papers, he "felt it a duty to suggest further and organized action." (8)

On 16 February 1899, in an address at the University under the auspices of the St. Joseph's branch of the Catholic Truth Society, (9) Fallon asserted that the doctrines "pilloried" by the declaration were "fundamental and characteristic articles of the Catholic creed." (10) While defending the right of Catholics to object to an insulting and rude declaration that was "scarcely a fitting expression to fall from the lips of the sovereign," he emphasized that he was not attacking the monarch's oath to maintain the Protestant religion or the proviso that the monarch must be a Protestant. (11) Since Canada was part of the British Empire and forty-two per cent of its population was Catholic, he declared, Canadians had a right to agitate against the declaration. It was neither a national nor a religious question; rather it was a request for justice and equal rights. While Catholic loyalty to the Empire could not be questioned, it was "folly to wound the most delicate sensibilities of millions of subjects," who would not stand the Empire in good stead in times of trouble, a prescient observation given rumblings of war in South Africa. After Fallon spoke, those at the meeting unanimously passed a motion calling for the abolition of the declaration. (12)

Subsequently, the local branch of the Catholic Truth Society and Fallon rapidly gained support for a campaign against the declaration. The Society asked its branches across the country and other Catholic societies to "pass a resolution in accord with the movement" and forward it to the local press and member of parliament. (13) They also sent pamphlets to members of the House of Commons and the Senate. (14) Various Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Catholic Order of Foresters, and branches of the Catholic Truth Society responded with their own resolutions. While Fallon wrote to the secular press, the Catholic press in Canada, Britain and the United States took up the issue. For example, the Northwest Review, a Catholic paper in St. Boniface, Manitoba, dismissed the declaration as "childish petulance and silly fear of Catholicism ... a foolish survival of the callow youth of Protestantism." (15)

Not surprisingly, the Orange Order strongly opposed any change to the declaration. Clarke Wallace, a Member of Parliament and Grand Master of the Orange Association of British North America, admonished that the "oath ought not to be lightly tampered with" since that would inevitably lead to the demand that the king need not be Protestant. He feared that "the veiled hand ... the deep design which seems hidden behind" presented the prospect that "the glorious liberation won in 1688 will be wrenched from us." (16) He "unhesitatingly" declared himself "against this movement, proclaimed to be harmless as a dove, but fraught with the cunning of a serpent." (17) The Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario East agreed:

   Rome is ever busy to get control of the destinies of our
   Dominion.... the so-called Catholic Truth Society--[was] a society
   even more dangerous than the Fenian Brotherhood, because they are
   opposed to violence, and seek by persuasion and flattery, mock
   frankness and professedly British loyalty, to further the aims that
   their ancestors strove for with bomb and dagger. (18)

The St. Joseph's sub-committee of Fallon and two prominent laymen met John Costigan, a leading Irish Catholic politician from New Brunswick, and Charles Fitzpatrick, the Solicitor General, who Fallon "supposed" to be "the representative of English Catholics in Parliament." (19) Fitzpatrick, however, "could not see his way clear to touch the question at all." No doubt his position was affected by Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier's belief that any action would be "inopportune." (20)

There the matter rested until 1901 when the death of Queen Victoria revived it. The British parliament had made no changes to the declaration. So embarrassed by the oath was King Edward VII that he read it in the House of Lords on 14 February in such a low voice that he was barely audible. When Cardinal Vaughan of Westminster protested the oath, the king informed the prime minister, Lord Salisbury, that he hoped this would be "the last time that I, or any of my successors, may have to make such a Declaration in such crude language." The cabinet agreed that a change was necessary. (21)

Canadian Catholics supported their British co-religionists. In Halifax, Archbishop O'Brien, a member of the Imperial Federation League and a staunch supporter of Canadian participation in the South African War, presided at an overflow meeting in St. Mary's Hall, which passed a resolution favouring the repeal of the declaration. (22) One speaker observed that Britain was insulting Catholics at the same time as thousands of Catholics were "prepared to die in the cause of their King and country" in South Africa. In fact, nearly ten per cent of Canadian volunteers for that conflict were Catholics. Not only Catholic soldiers supported the British cause. Prominent laymen, including Solicitor General Fitzpatrick, wholeheartedly supported it. Some Catholic newspapers opposed the war, but muted their opinions once Canadians were in the field. Given such rallying to the imperial war effort, the declaration seemed particularly obnoxious. (23)

Once again, Fallon came to the fore, as he told his parishoners that "Catholics will not cease their respectful but emphatic protest until the Imperial Parliament shall bury forever in no honored grave, this memorial of a bitter and barbarous age." (24) The declaration, he asserted, "concerns Catholics primarily, but ... ought to concern every self-respecting citizen of the British Empire." (25) In a letter to the Ottawa Journal, he cited the Liverpool Catholic Times, "the most influential Catholic newspaper in the British Empire," and its call for petitions carrying the name of every Catholic in the Empire. (26)

The Ottawa Journal was strongly supportive. Observing that Catholics formed almost a fifth of the Empire's "white population," it remarked that in Britain a Catholic had held the position of chief justice and others had served in the cabinet. Canada had a Catholic prime minister and Catholics occupied "some of the most responsible stations in all branches of the public service...." In light of this, the Journal concluded that the declaration had "become an indefensible brutality and folly." (27)

The Catholic press, of course, also opposed the declaration. The Casket of Antigonish called it "a relic of religious barbarism." (28) The Catholic Register went even farther by questioning why Catholics should be debarred from the throne. As for the declaration, it asked, "Why should the millions of the King's Catholic subjects be obliged to listen to such declarations from a man whom they all look up to as the common ruler and father of his people?" (29) It defended the right of Canadian Catholics "to register a strong objection to it." (30)

The secular press, at least the Toronto Star, admonished against arousing religious passions. After Costigan gave notice of a motion asking the House of Commons to seek the abolition of the declaration, it warned about "toying with edged tools." It rightly feared that Clarke Wallace, still Grand Master, would "use the occasion for all it is worth by making a Twelfth of July oration, without regard to consequences." (31)

In introducing his motion on 1 March, Costigan noted that Canadians fought together in South Africa without regard to creed and that Catholics could "perform all the duties of citizenship." He stressed that he had no objection to the coronation oath itself, but the declaration offended "the convictions of all Roman Catholics," whose loyalty "should exempt them from any offensive reference to their religion by their sovereign." (32) Emphasizing that this was not just a Catholic issue, Arthur Kendall, a Baptist and the Liberal Member for Cape Breton, seconded the motion. (33)

Stressing that it cut across partisan and religious lines, Prime Minister Laurier endorsed the motion, which "would have a most beneficial effect for the peace and harmony of all creeds and all races ... through the whole British Empire." He described the declaration as a "repugnant ... remnant of those intolerant ages which for many centuries desolated Europe." Again he emphasized that the Protestantism of England was not in question, that he was "quite content to be a subject of the Protestant King of England." As for the Protestant fear of Rome, he asserted, "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 only a spiritual mandate and "no authority or jurisdiction whatever in secular matters." Catholics would remain loyal even if the declaration were retained, but their loyalty "would be enhanced and would be more enthusiastic if that legislation, the last remnant of persecuting ages ... were to be blotted out forever from the statute books of free England." (34)

Opposition Leader Robert Borden agreed that abolishing or amending the declaration posed no danger to the Protestant succession, which was guaranteed by the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. If the situation were reversed and the Protestant faith were maligned, he believed that Protestants would react in a similar way. Parliament, he argued, had the right to discuss it since Canadians were also subjects of the king. He saw "very little" religious intolerance in Canada and hoped that members would speak "in a generous and moderate spirit" that would not arouse animosity. In conclusion, he suggested changing the motion to satisfy the consciences of those members who could not bring themselves "to vote for the resolution exactly in the way in which it is framed" by simply asking only that the offensive language be removed rather than that the declaration be abolished altogether. (35)

As expected, the tone of the debate changed dramatically when Wallace spoke. He charged that Costigan only made speeches along religious or racial lines "calculated to provoke that very strife which we should seek to avoid." Recalling that Laurier had prevented the question from coming before the House in 1900 when an election was imminent, he accused Laurier of bringing it forward now to strengthen his position in Quebec. Challenging those who considered the declaration unnecessary, he asserted that the declaration and the coronation oath together were the main safeguards of the Protestant succession. In any event, it should be left to the people and parliament of Great Britain, if they believed there was injustice or unfairness, to remedy it. (36)

Meanwhile, Laurier conferred with Costigan, who agreed to replace the request for the abolition of the declaration with a plea to delete "all those expressions which are especially offensive to the religious beliefs of any subject of the British Empire." (37) In effect, this was Borden's idea. After further debate the amended motion passed by a vote of 125 to 19. (38)

No matter its geographic, party, linguistic, and religious affiliations, the press generally approved of Parliament's action. The Liberal Toronto Star was relieved that the debate had been conducted with moderation except for the one "discordant note" of Wallace's attack on Costigan and Laurier. (39)

Another Toronto Liberal paper, The Globe agreed that the declaration was no longer necessary, that "the words remain like the ruins of some gloomy prison which has been rendered tenantless and needless by the progress of enlightenment and humanity." (40) The Conservative Fredericton Daily Gleaner considered the declaration "needlessly offensive to the Roman Catholic subjects of the King." (41) The Conservative Montreal Gazette thought that the declaration was unnecessary; the pope had no temporal power and Catholics were loyal subjects. While it was reasonable that the monarch should be Protestant, it was also reasonable that the oaths he took should contain "nothing needlessly offensive to his other Christian, or non-Christian people." (42) The Winnipeg Free Press, a Liberal paper and the most influential western newspaper, declared that the language of the declaration "can be advantageously modified without diminishing its efficacy as security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession." (43) It also denounced Wallace as a "dangerous fanatic ... we find him more and more insupportable and intolerable." (44) The Calgary' Weekly Herald, an Independent journal, described the declaration as "a bigoted formality that has long outlived its usefulness," (45) while criticizing those who had voted against the motion for demonstrating that there were "strong advocates of bigoted fanaticism left in the country." (46) The Victoria Daily Colonist, a Conservative supporter, hailed the House of Commons for its "almost unanimous action" in seeking the removal of the "objectionable expression" and "blood-curdling sentences." (47)

Comments in the francophone press were remarkably similar. La Patrie believed, "les chefs Tories sont des intolerants." (48) The historian Thomas Chapais, proprietor of Le Courrier du Canada, called the declaration "cette formule odieuse" and "le dernier vestige d'une legislation violente et tyrannique." (49) La Verite thought it "blasphematoire, haineuse et insolente." (50)

As might be expected, the religious press, both Catholic and Protestant, made comments. On the eve of the parliamentary debate, the Catholic Record, in noting that the late queen had praised Irish Catholic soldiers for their role in the South African war, asked, "is it not an act of supreme folly and ingratitude to persist in retaining in the King's oath, a clause gratuitously insulting them and their co-religionists?" (51) In declaring that the debate was marred by Wallace, who "donned his 12th July war paint and endeavored to raise the race and creed cry," it argued that Catholics, loyal to the monarch and to England and English institutions, deserved better than to be "branded as idolators, and the most sacred articles of our creed banned by contumelious epithets." (52) The Catholic Register was not perturbed by Orange attacks on Costigan's motion, which, it averred, provided "as strong an argument" for the Catholic position as could be found anywhere. (53)

The Protestant press was, for the most part, markedly moderate in tone. The Methodist Christian Guardian had no fear that abolishing or modifying the declaration would threaten the Protestant succession and was willing to eliminate language that was "needlessly offensive ... unworthy of our age of liberty and enlightenment." (54) The Presbyterian Witness of Halifax agreed that it was "only reasonable" to remove offensive portions of the declaration, (55) while the Presbyterian Review believed that "the time is coming on, and is probably near, when the offensive phraseology in the declaration might be dropped out, and, in its stead, a form of words introduced which should simply express the adherence of the monarch to Protestant principles." (56) The Baptist Messenger and Witness of Saint John, New Brunswick, thought that the "great majority of Protestants" would regard the Catholic objections as "reasonable and just." (57) This moderate reaction confirmed the opinion of the Catholic bishops, who sensed that for the most part at this time "public and institutional peace" reigned between Protestants and Catholics and that the "open violence and institutional bigotry" of the past had subsided. (58)

There were a few discordant notes. Saturday Night magazine, edited by E.E. Sheppard, an Orangeman who was both anti-Catholic and anti-French Canadian, (59) contended that the House of Commons had given Catholics a victory without receiving anything in return. While the king had Catholic subjects, Protestants "who subscribe for the building of [Catholic] churches and the maintenance of priests and hospitals" had a right to demand that "the oaths taken by the hierarchy shall be more liberal." (60) The Canadian Baptist still suspected that the Pope had political ambitions. It quoted another Baptist newspaper to the effect that the papacy was "a gigantic political system" whose aim was "universal empire by means of religion." It called the doctrine of transubstantiation "an arrogant demand by the priests that they should be acknowledged as men possessing superhuman power. This is the root of papal mischief." It was unthinkable that a king "should reign among us till he had taken a stringent oath against any complication [sic] with the great apostasy." (61)

And, of course, the Orange Order remained firmly opposed to any change to the declaration. An Orange gathering in Vancouver on 12 July 1901 passed a resolution "emphatically" protesting an "ill-advised and untimely" motion. (62) At the annual meeting of the Young Britons Grand Lodge the Grand Secretary reported that maintaining the declaration was never "more needful than at the present time, and it will continue to be necessary as long as Rome is what she is, and ever has been." (63) The provincial Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario excoriated "a weak and truculent government" for passing a nearly unanimous motion seeking change to the declaration "and in so doing misrepresented an overwhelming majority of their constituents." (64) The Grand Master of the Grand Chapter of the Royal Black Knights of Ireland declared the vote "a gratuitous insult to the prevailing religious sentiments of the country," complaining that Catholics "are careful not to offer any reciprocity of sentiment by agreeing to tone down even to the extent of a syllable the offensive and violent anathemas hurled at Protestants by their clergy and higher dignitaries in their official declarations." (65)

The rebuff to the Orange Order expressed in the Canadian decision to call for the elimination of the offensive words attracted attention in London. The Tablet, a leading Catholic weekly, extolled Canadian parliamentarians:

   for the prompt and decisive action they have taken in protest
   against the insult offered to the Catholic faith from the steps of
   the throne.... It is pleasant ... to note how men of all creeds and
   of every political persuasion were united, in that freer land, in
   calling upon England to rid herself of this tyranny of an ancient
   statute, and to cease to insult the living at the instance of the
   dead. (66)

Perhaps it was such favourable response abroad that inspired the Canadian hierarchy to seek to influence British actions. Surprisingly, the initiative came from Archbishop Begin of Quebec City, the highest church authority in his province. When the matter arose in 1899, his lukewarm response to the protest against the oath reflected the common idea in Quebec that Canada should protect its own interests and not get involved in imperial affairs such as the South African conflict. His official newspaper, the Semaine Religieuse, declared that the issue was one for the Catholics of England, not Canada, to pursue. Although recognizing that the declaration was insulting, the paper admitted that Catholics enjoyed religious liberty throughout the Empire. Canadian Catholics, it argued, should instead concentrate on problems that concerned them most directly, such as the need for justice for the Catholics of Manitoba, whose loss of provincial government funding for their schools had not been assuaged by Laurier's "sunny ways." (67) On 17 March 1901, in a complete turn of attitude, he informed Archbishop Denis O'Connor of Toronto that he was asking all francophone bishops to sign a letter supporting Cardinal Vaughan. He asked O'Connor to sign an English translation and transmit it to Cardinal Vaughan for submission to the king. (68)

Thirty-one anglophone and francophone Canadian bishops signed the letter of 10 April, congratulating Vaughan for opposing the declaration. After asserting that England owed justice to Catholics, "who are daily growing more numerous throughout the ever-widening empire, and who have never been sparing of their loyalty to the Crown," the letter concluded that

   it is our solicitude for the best interests of England, for her
   fame and glory, as well as zeal for the things of God, that urges
   us to claim what so many earnestly solicit of her Government, viz.,
   that the beginning of the reign of Edward VII may be signalized by
   such a change in the wording of the oath of accession as shall
   contribute powerfully to promote the union of her people and to
   increase in the hearts of Catholics gratitude that they have never
   failed to show for similar reforms. (69)

This "splendid letter" pleased Cardinal Vaughan, who reported that it "produced a powerful impression in England." He wanted Canadians to do more. He was sure that strong protests sent to Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, would "induce him to take up an attitude in the Cabinet & the Commons that nothing else would move him to. He is very sensitive to the demands, the strong & resolute demands, that may be made by Canada and Australia." With perhaps a bit of hyperbole, the Cardinal suggested that success would be "more in the hands of Canada than of any other part of the Empire." If protests from civil and religious authorities, public meetings, and corporations appeared to be spontaneous, he advised, they would be more effective than clearly orchestrated ones. (70)

The parliament of the United Kingdom made limited progress towards an acceptable result. In June 1901 the House of Lords struck a committee, comprised of both government and opposition members, to study the issue. In a memorandum, the Catholic bishops warned of the folly of arousing "a storm of religious anger" throughout the empire if the throne were "used as a party weapon for striking at the articles of a particular creed." In contrast, the Council of the Imperial Protestant Federation, representing 27 Protestant organizations, argued that any change would weaken the declaration's usefulness as a safeguard of Britain's civil and religious liberties. (71)

In Britain, as in Canada earlier, there were efforts towards compromise. Lord Strathcona, Canada's High Commissioner in London, told Laurier of the Duke of Argyll's scheme to have the king simply confirm that he believed in the Protestant faith. Laurier agreed that this:

   would certainly be a great step forward, though it would still seem
   to me that ... the constitution of the United States, which admits
   of absolute equality of all religious denominations, would be
   preferable. I presume, however, that it would be premature to
   expect anything of the kind in Great Britain, but the removal of
   the offensive part from the Coronation Oath would certainly do away
   with a great deal of complaint. (72)

Some lords took the opinion of Catholics outside of Britain very seriously. In moving second reading of the bill, Lord Salisbury referred to petitions from Malta and Mauritius and the Canadian hierarchy, whose letter to Cardinal Vaughan:

   expresses in the strongest way the feeling that animates other
   members of the Roman Catholic Church in other parts of the
   Empire.... These Catholics are no doubt devoted members of our
   Empire. But our King is their King, and they have as much claim on
   our King as we have, and it is not only intelligible, but quite
   natural, that they should look upon it as a real grievance that
   language of a most violent and objectionable kind should be used
   against the articles of their faith at the most solemn moment of
   his reign by the Sovereign when ascending the Throne.... We can
   imagine the pain, grief, and indignation which it has aroused in
   their minds. (73)

The committee, of which Argyll was a member, recommended some changes, but much fewer than he proposed. It described the mass and devotion to Mary and the saints as "contrary to the Protestant religion," but did not change the denial of transubstantiation. This pleased neither the more extreme Protestants, who wanted no change, nor Catholics who felt the changes did not go far enough. When it became clear that a bill based on these recommendations would never pass the House of Commons, the government let the issue lapse. (74)

Some members of the Canadian hierarchy continued to try to influence opinion in the British Parliament. In a letter to the Colonial Secretary, Monseigneur Olivier-E. Mathieu, the rector of Laval University, stressed the liberty his students had enjoyed, their loyalty, the love they had for their church, and their veneration for the pope. "For these reasons," he said, "they are pained to see His Majesty forced to take an Oath in which are explicitly denied truths which they admit and dogmas which they venerate." In their name he asked for a change to the form of the declaration, but not its abolition. (75) More controversial was the action of Archbishop Begin, who continued to be concerned about the declaration. Responding to a request from Cardinal Vaughan, in the fall of 1901 he directed the faithful in his archdiocese to sign protests that condemned Chamberlain personally for retaining in the declaration statements contrary to the faith of Catholics. "This sectarian intolerance," the protest said, is "dishonourable to England, [and] cannot but alienate the hearts of a great number of the subjects of His Majesty." It demanded the abolition of "this vestige of hate and religious discord." (76) Archbishop Duhamel of Ottawa informed O'Connor of this protest and reported that his archdiocese and that of Montreal were thinking of directing their clergy "to have Protests signed or to call parochial meetings to pass Resolutions petitioning for the abolition of the Oath." (77)

Such protests had political repercussions in Canada. Joseph Pope, the Under-Secretary of State and a convert to Catholicism, informed Laurier about the "most inopportune" situation in Quebec that would likely produce an undesirable "counter agitation in Ontario." What particularly perturbed Pope was the prospect of religious discord while the Duke of York--the future George V--and his wife were touring Canada. Could Laurier not "head it off ... or at least induce them to postpone the agitation until the Duke has gone?" (78) A furious Laurier agreed: "No more foolish and no more offensive movement could well be undertaken at this moment ... The language of that petition is quite sufficient to condemn it. I have taken some steps already to try to check it, if possible." (79) In fact, Laurier had already informed Apostolic Delegate Falconio that in some Quebec parishes a petition had been read from the pulpit asking the king to abolish the oath. The Prime Minister reminded the delegate of the recent movement by Catholics throughout the empire to modify, though not abolish, the declaration. "Having taken that position," he wrote, "it would be weak in the extreme, to depart from it, as it is suggested in this petition.... Any vacillation on the subject would certainly very much mitigate, if not destroy the effect of the work done so far." While the petition was "absolutely injudicious," even worse was its "harsh" and "offensive" language, which was "calculated not to promote the object which the petition has in view, but rather to create such an irritation as to make it impossible to have a calm and dispassionate discussion." Even if the language were more moderate and sought modification not abolition, "he would strongly deprecate any isolated action by anybody." Any action should be taken in concert with the Catholics of Great Britain. (80) Laurier did not know that the petition was a response to the request of Cardinal Vaughan whose letter to O'Connor referred to abolition.

The imminence of the coronation in 1902 kept the question alive in Canada. "When an Archbishop," the Catholic Register reported, "an ex-Governor of the Province, a Speaker of the Senate of Canada, a Judge and other personages of high rank feel obliged to have recourse to public demonstration in such a matter as this we must regard it as a truly remarkable sign of the times." The paper bitterly noted that "The length of a skirt worn by a peeress, or the number of studs in the shirt front of a new knight are more interesting points to be settled before the coronation than the resentment of His Majesty's Catholic subjects against a most intolerant insult to their religion and citizenship." (81)

By then, however, the declaration was clearly a problem for the British government, which was not inclined to revisit the controversial issue despite sporadic attempts to do so. In 1903 the staunchly Protestant Earl Grey, soon to be appointed Governor-General of Canada, introduced a motion to abolish the declaration. A strong imperialist, he worried that retaining the declaration, which he deemed unnecessary for the preservation of the Protestant succession, would affect the loyalty of Catholics throughout the Empire. The government defeated Grey's bill. (82) Similarly, the following year the government refused to act when the Duke of Norfolk, the leading Catholic peer, sought to amend the declaration. The same fate met an attempt by Lord Landfall to change the declaration in 1905. In 1908 William Redmond of the Irish Parliamentary Party, which sought Home Rule for Ireland, introduced a bill in the Commons to alter the declaration. The Liberal government of H.H. Asquith, in office since 1906, was sympathetic. Indeed, Asquith was "most anxious" to reach a solution (83); on 14 May 1909 he unequivocally stated that "the time has come to put an end to this declaration," but agreement on new wording was required. (84)

When King Edward died suddenly on 6 May 1910, the government could no longer procrastinate. The new king, George V, opposed the declaration as much as his father. Despite divided opinion, Asquith was determined to push a bill through. On 11 May the Ottawa Citizen reported that the British government was "endeavouring to alter the sovereign's coronation oath so as to be less offensive to the Roman Catholics." (85)

In Canada, the response was similar to what it had been in 1901. The Ottawa Journal believed that this

   will likely meet with the approval of moderately minded men of all
   shades of opinion in the Empire.... The Empire should be
   strengthened by the fact that for the first time in over two
   hundred years, a sovereign ascending the British throne, is not
   obliged to insult the beliefs of millions of loyal and intelligent
   citizens of the Empire. (86)

The Toronto Globe agreed that "the offensive phrases of the Coronation Oath ... [and] its recriminating declarations must go," and praised Catholics for demanding a change "instead of treating the matter with indifference." (87) The Toronto Star felt that "assuming that the Monarch must be Protestant, a simple declaration of his belief is sufficient without a declaration that another belief, held by millions of loyal subjects, is 'superstitious and idolatrous.'" (88) The Quebec Daily Telegraph hoped that "the statement is correct that the British Government proposes to modify the coronation oath so as to avoid unnecessarily wounding the susceptibilities of the King's Roman Catholic subjects." (89)

Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, now the Chief Justice of Canada, was in London in May. In an interview with The Tablet he stressed that Canadian Catholics "would resent the making of the Declaration to-day with a depth and intensity of feeling which it would be difficult to exaggerate." When asked for his personal opinion he replied: "no man who has the cause of Imperial Federation really at heart, no man who dreams of drawing closer the ties binding the scattered units of the Empire, can possibly wish to hear King George, at the beginning of his reign, repeat the words of the Royal Declaration." In referring to the parliamentary motion of 1901 as a "memorable and momentous resolution," (90) The Tablet asked rhetorically, how would Canadian Catholics feel if they heard "that GEORGE V, as the first act of his reign had offered this public insult to the religion of 42 [sic] per cent of the people of the Dominion, and that in spite of the solemn and recorded protest of the Parliament at Ottawa?" (91)

On 13 June Asquith announced the government would soon introduce legislation to modify the oath. In introducing the bill on 28 June Asquith remarked that Catholics had "grown enormously" in numbers and strength and were "spread over the length and breadth of the British Empire." Their loyalty was not in doubt and did not need "to be hedged round by special safeguards." (92) The bill wound its way through the parliamentary process and received royal assent on 3 August. (93)

News of Asquith's plans and their ultimate success pleased Canadian Catholics. Archbishop Bruchesi of Montreal cabled the Archbishop of Westminster, Francis Bourne, that "Canadian Catholics are overjoyed at Premier Asquith's announcement that he is confident the House of Commons will modify the declaration to be taken by King George at his coronation." (94) The Catholic Register saw "the removal of the obnoxious and offensive phrases ... [as] ... evidence of that broader and kindlier spirit which has come over the English people and Parliament in recent years." (95) The Catholic Record expressed the hope that, as Edward's reign "was glorious in the peace it brought, so may his [George V] reign be glorious in true religious freedom regained." (96) The Catholic Montreal Tribune greeted the final passage of the bill in triumphalist fashion:

   The "No Popery" party beat the big drum of intolerance in vain, for
   the modification of the Royal Declaration is desired by all
   reasonable and tolerant Protestants from the King down.... The "No
   Popery" drum is cracked, and has lost its power to incite
   intolerance and obstruct the work of emancipation that has been
   slowly but steadily removing the last vestiges of the Penal Laws
   against Catholics. (97)

The Orange Order, however, bitterly opposed any change. Orange Grand Master Sproule declared that

   Until the Pope cancels the oaths taken by the Jesuits, he has no
   right to ask for a change in the oath of the Sovereign of
   Britain .... [Jesuits are] made to swear that they believe the Pope
   has the right to depose Kings and Governments. While this claim
   exists it is necessary that all who admit it shall be excluded from
   ascending the throne of the British Empire. (98)

However, the Protestant churches rejected the Order's appeal for official support. Both the Methodist Conference and the Presbyterian General Assembly decided to take no action." When Bishop William Mills admonished that the Synod "would show wisdom in leaving alone any proposed protest against change in the Coronation Oath," a motion before the Ontario Synod of the Anglican Church was withdrawn. (100) The Anglican Synod of Ottawa rejected a similar motion. (101)

The Canadian controversy over the Coronation oath is a telling episode in the larger history of Christian Canada. It revealed that anti-Catholicism, though still of concern to politicians, was rapidly waning in intensity as many Protestants in Parliament, in the press, and in churches recognized that a gratuitous insult to Catholics must be removed and would not endanger the Protestant succession. Similarly, Canadian Catholics were prepared to compromise, to seek modification, but not the abolition of the oath. Their loyalty to a Protestant monarch and to the British Empire was unquestioned and had been demonstrated by their contributions to the British cause during the South African War. The response in Britain to the actions of the Canadian parliament in 1901 and the continued interest of Canadians, including those in Quebec, in British affairs suggest that the fear of The Tablet that leaving the Declaration in place "would loosen the bonds of the Empire" was exaggerated; Catholics in Canada and Britain, though resenting insults to their faith, by agitating for justice and demonstrating loyalty to their monarch helped to secure the removal of the most egregious "relic of religious barbarism." (102)

(1) R.A. MacLean, The Casket, 1852-1992: From Gutenberg to Internet, The Story of a Small-Town Weekly (n.p, n.d.), 102.

(2) Joseph M. Fewster, "The Royal Declaration Against Transubstantiation and the Struggle Against Religious Discrimination in the Early Twentieth Century" Recusant History, 30, no. 4 (October 2011), 555.

(3) For the complete text see Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 556.

(4) Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 556.

(5) J.R. Miller, "Anti-Catholicism in Canada: From the British Conquest to the Great War," in Terrence Murphy and Gerald Stortz, eds., Creed and Culture: The Place of English-Speaking Catholics in Canadian Society, 1750-1930 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), 25-48.

(6) Fallon was one of the leading figures in the increasingly acrimonious dispute over the linguistic identity of the University. Bishop Guigues of Ottawa originally established it as a bilingual institution in 1848. In 1874 it became unilingual English. Early in 1898 a francophone was appointed rector in succession to an anglophone with a mandate to transform the university into a solely French school and Fallon was removed as vice-rector. Robert Choquette, Language and Religion: A History of English-French Conflict in Ontario (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975), 9-13. For a brief discussion of Fallon's career see Michael Power, "The Mitred Warrior: A critical reassessment of Bishop Michael Francis Fallon, 1867-1931" Catholic Insight, 8 no. 3 (April 2000), 18-26.

(7) "Which Church is Catholic," Ottawa Journal, 5 December 1898, 3.

(8) "The Declaration Against Catholic Doctrines Which Accompanies the Coronation Oath of the British Sovereign," University of Ottawa Review, February 1899, 302-3. Fallon's talk was first published here and later printed as a pamphlet by the St. Joseph's branch of the Catholic Truth Society.

(9) "Coronation Declaration," Ottawa Journal, 17 February 1899, 8.

(10) Reverend M.F. Fallon, O.M.I., D.D., The Declaration Against Catholic Doctrines which accompanies the Coronation Oath of the British Sovereign (Ottawa: Ottawa Printing Co. Ltd. 1899), 13.

(11) Fallon, The Declaration Against Catholic Doctrines, 15.

(12) Fallon, The Declaration Against Catholic Doctrines, 16-19.

(13) "Will Spread Agitation," Ottawa Journal, 6 April 1899, 3. The Catholic Truth Society was founded in England in 1868 "to promote knowledge and practice of the Catholic faith among Catholics and non-Catholics, the wider Christian community and general enquirers, by publishing and disseminating Catholic publications at affordable prices." www.ctsbooks.org/about-us, <accessed 22 April 2016>.

(14) "Small City Items," Ottawa Journal, 29 April 1899, 2.

(15) "The Coronation Oath," Northwest Review, 23 May 1899, 2.

(16) "Orange Grand Lodge," Toronto Star, 30 May 1899, 1; "Will Strongly Oppose Change," Ottawa Journal, 31 May 1899, 1.

(17) "N. Clark Wallace," Portage La Prairie News and Portage La Prairie Review, 7 June 1899, 3.

(18) "Grand Master Feels Warm," Ottawa Journal, 16 March 1899, 5.

(19) "Before Parliament," Ottawa Journal, 11 April 1899, 7.

(20) "The Coronation Oath," Northwest Review, 15 August 1899, 1. Why Laurier felt this way is not clear. The next election was more than a year away, but the crisis in South Africa was starting to bubble. He may have sought to avoid another controversy, especially one that would raise religious passions.

(21) Sir Sidney Lee, King Edward VII, A Biography, Volume II: The Reign (London: Macmillan and Co., 1927), 22-3.

(22) "Catholics of Halifax Enter Solemn Protest," Catholic Register, 30 January 1901, 1. The Register was published in Toronto. Although privately owned at this time, the archbishop kept a close watch on it. In 1908 it was sold to the Catholic Church Extension Society. (Mark G. McGowan, The Waning of the Green: Catholics, the Irish and Identity in Toronto, 1887-1922 [Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999] 192.)

(23) Mark G. McGowan, "The Imperial Irish of Halifax: Irish Catholic Recruitment in the Wars of the British Empire, 1899-1919," in Mark G. McGowan and Michael E. Vance, eds. Canadian Catholic Historical Association Occasional Paper, Irish Catholic Halifax: From the Napoleonic Wars to the Great War, 2015, 224-61.

(24) "Catholics Object To It," Ottawa Journal, 12 February 1901, 3.

(25) "Objections to the Oath," Ottawa Journal, 9 February 1901, 5.

(26) "The Coronation Oath," Ottawa Journal, 12 February 1901, 8.

(27) "The Coronation Declaration," Ottawa Journal, 14 February 1901, 4.

(28) R.A. MacLean, The Casket, 102.

(29) "The King's Oath," Catholic Register, 1 February 1901, 4.

(30) "Editorial Notes," Catholic Register, 24 February 1901, 4.

(31) "Toying With Edged Tools," Toronto Star, 1 March 1901, 1.

(32) Canada, House of Commons, Debates (hereafter HCD), 1 March 1901, columns 695-98.

(33) Kendall was a medical doctor and social reformer. See Moira Ross, "Dr. Arthur Samuel Kendall, His Life and Times as a Medical Doctor, Politician and Citizen of Cape Breton Island, 1861-1944," MA Thesis, St. Mary's University, Halifax, 1998, www. collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/S4/f2/dsk2/tape17/PQDD_0023/mq33852.pdf, <accessed 22 February 2016.>

(34) HCD, 1 March 1901, columns 700-07.

(35) HCD, 1 March 1901, columns 709-12.

(36) HCD, 1 March 1901, columns 717, 726-9.

(37) HCD, 1 March 1901, column 782..

(38) The 19 against comprised 18 Conservatives and one Liberal, Frank Oliver, who represented the constituency of Alberta (Provisional District), Northwest Territories. He denied that the declaration was insulting to Catholics since there was no intention on the part of the monarch to do so. HCD, 1 March 1901, columns 795-6.

(39) "A Dangerous Subject Debated Without Acrimony and Upon a High Plane With Only One Discordant Note," Toronto Star, 1 March 1901, 1. In noting that Fallon had followed the debate from the Speaker's Gallery, the Star described him as "widely known through the agitation he has carried on with reference to the King's oath."

(40) "The Coronation Oath," Toronto Globe, 2 March 1901, 20.

(41) "The Coronation Oath," Fredericton Daily Gleaner, 2 March 1901, 4.

(42) "The King's Oath," Montreal Gazette, 1 March 1901, 4.

(43) "The Coronation Oath," Winnipeg Free Press, 2 July 1901, 4.

(44) Winnipeg Free Press, 5 March 1901, 1.

(45) "An Exhibition of Bigotry," Calgary Weekly Herald, 1 March 1901, 2.

(46) "The Vote on Coronation Oath," Calgary Weekly Herald, 14 March 1901, 3.

(47) "The Coronation Oath," Victoria Daily Colonist, 3 March 1901, 4.

(48) "La Motion Costigan," La Patrie, 2 March 1901, 20.

(49) "Le Serment Du Roi Et Les Catholiques IV," Le Courrier du Canada, 1 March 1901,2 and 5 March 1901, 2. Chapais wrote a series of articles on the subject which he then published as a pamphlet under the same title, "Le Serment Du Roi Et Les Catholiques."

(50) "La Declaration Blasphematoire," La Verite, 9 March 1901, 2.

(51) "The 'Coronation Oath,"' Catholic Record, 2 March 1901s 4. The Record was published in London, Ontario, but circulated widely across Canada and the United States. Its owner, Thomas Coffey, was appointed to the Senate by Laurier in 1903 and the paper had a distinctly Liberal image. (McGowan, The Waning of the Green), 194.

(52) "The Coronation Oath In Parliament," Catholic Record, 9 March 1901, 1 and 4.

(53) "Editorial Notes," Catholic Register, 21 March 1901, 4.

(54) "The Anti-Catholic Declaration," Christian Guardian, 4 March 1901.

(55) "The Coronation Oath," Presbyterian Witness, 23 February 1901, 6.

(56) Presbyterian Review, 7 March 1901, extract in Sir Robert Borden Fonds, Library and Archives Canada (hereafter LAC), microfilm reel C4453, 179288.

(57) "The Coronation Oath," Messenger and Witness, 6 March 1901, 1.

(58) Mark G. McGowan, "Rethinking Catholic-Protestant Relations in Canada: The Episcopal Reports of 1900-1901," Canadian Catholic Historical Association, Historical Studies, 59(1992), 23, 31.

(59) Ramsay Cook, "Sheppard, Edmund Ernest," Dictionary of Canadian Biography, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/sheppard_edmund_ernest_15E.html.<accessed 15 February 2016>

(60) "Notes From the Capital," Saturday Night, 9 March 1901, 3; 6. The reference to the oaths of the hierarchy reflects the erroneous belief of extreme Protestants that the bishops and the Jesuits were required to take an oath asserting the supremacy of the pope over kings and governments. J. Castell Hopkins, Canadian Annual Review, of Public Affairs, 1910 (Toronto: Annual Review Publishing Company, 1911), 28.

(61) "Editorial Notes," Canadian Baptist, 14 March 1901, 4.

(62) "Twelfth of July," Daily Colonist, 13 July 1901, 1.

(63) "Young Britons Annual Meeting," Ottawa Journal, 13 June 1901, 3. "The Loyal Orange Young Britons Association, as a junior order, was the key outlet for channeling teenage boys into the ways and worlds of the Orange fraternity before their initiation into primary lodges," according to William Jenkins, "Views from 'the Hub of the Empire': Loyal Orange Lodges in early twentieth-century Toronto," in David Wilson, ed., The Orange Order in Canada (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007), 135.

(64) "The Orange Grand Lodge," Ottawa Journal, 22 March 1901, 4.

(65) "Orangemen Object to Interference of Canadian Parliament," Ottawa Journal, 23 July 1901, 3.

(66) "Catholics and The Government," The Tablet, 9 March 1901, 361.

(67) "Is Not A Concern Here," Ottawa Journal, 12 May 1899, 5. In 1896 Begin strongly denounced Laurier's compromise agreement with the government of Manitoba as "a shameful treaty" and "an absolutely immoral act." See Roberto Perin, "Begin, Louis-Nazaire", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, www.biographi.ca/en/bio/begin_ louis_nazaire_15E.html,. <accessed 2 January 2016>.

(68) Archives of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto (hereafter ARCAT), Denis T. O'Connor Fonds, Archbishop of Quebec to O'Connor, 17 March 1901, series O, AB 0306.

(69) "King's Coronation Oath," Catholic Register, 11 April 1901, 5. The hierarchy in Australia also-protested. See Fewster, Royal Declaration, 557.

(70) ARCAT, O'Connor Fonds, Vaughan to O'Connor, 15 July 1901, series O, AB 0315. For objections from other parts of the empire see Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 556-7.

(71) Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 558.

(72) LAC, Laurier Fonds, Laurier to Strathcona, 28 June 1901, microfilm reel C786, 57248.

(73) United Kingdom, House of Lords, Debates, 23 July 1901, vol. 97, columns 1264-7.

(74) Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 558-62.

(75) J. Castell Hopkins, Morang's Annual Register of Canadian Affairs, 1901 (Toronto: George N. Morang and Co. Ltd., 1902), 229-30.

(76) Hopkins, Annual Register, 1901, 229.

(77) ARCAT, O'Connor Fonds, Duhamel to O'Connor, 1 October 1901, series O, AB 0321.

(78) LAC, Laurier Fonds, Pope to Laurier, 3 September 1901, microfilm reel C787, 58663-5.

(79) LAC, Laurier Fonds, Laurier to Pope, 6 September 1901, microfilm reel C787, 58666-7.

(80) LAC, Laurier Fonds, Laurier to Falconio, 4 September 1901, microfilm reel 787, 58712-15.

(81) "The Halifax Protest," Catholic Register, 30 January 1902, 4.

(82) Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 562-3.

(83) Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 563-4.

(84) United Kingdom, House of Commons, Debates, 14 May 1909, col. 2171.

(85) "Political Uncertainty," Ottawa Citizen, 11 May 1910, 11.

(86) "The Coronation Oath," Ottawa Journal, 12 May 1910, 6.

(87) "The Coronation Oath," Toronto Globe, 13 May 1910, 6.

(88) "The King's Oath," Toronto Star, 17 May 1910, 6.

(89) "The Coronation Oath," Quebec Daily Telegraph, 16 May 1910, 17.

(90) "The Royal Declaration," The Tablet, 14 May 1910, 761.

(91) "Canada and the Declaration," The Tablet, 21 May 1910, 801.

(92) Great Britain, House of Commons, Debates, 28 June 1910, col. 848.

(93) Fewster, "Royal Declaration," 568.

(94) "Canadian Catholics Overjoyed," Toronto Star, 17 June 1910, 1.

(95) Quoted in "The Royal Declaration," Toronto Globe, 30 June 1910, 9.

(96) "Catholic Emancipation," Catholic Record, 4 June 1910, 4.

(97) "House Of Commons At Last Amends The Coronation Oath," Montreal Tribune, 4 August 1910, 4.

(98) "Should Amend Jesuit's Oath," Toronto Star, 25 May 1910, 1.

(99) "Won't Protest Against Changing The Oath," Toronto Star, 17 June 1910, 3; "Close of Assembly," Ottawa Citizen, 10 June 1910, 10.

(100) "Ontario Synod And King's Oath," Ottawa Journal, 11 June 1910, 8.

(111) "Anglican Synod.Ended Session," Ottawa Citizen, 10 June 1910, 11.

(102) "The Declaration That Must Go," The Tablet, 28 May 1910, 841.