Part 15

And in the same session M. Briand, to explain why it was not possible to lend the churches to _curés_ under the new law for any definite time, said: “In fixing no term the Government is logical. Having a law to execute (that of 1905), and having the conviction that the Church will end by accepting it, we could not give to uncontrolled associations under the law of 1901, which are a concession to the Church, the same advantages as to _Associations cultuelles_” (1905) (_Journal Officiel_, p. 3407, December 21st, 1906).

The new law of December 28th, 1906, says the use of the churches can be obtained by the declaration of the _curé_ individually, or of an association formed according to the law of 1901, or rather according to _certain_ articles of this law _only_. The Church may not avail herself of the articles which permit the formation of associations called “of public utility”--like the S.P.A., for instance.

This is what these Jacobins understand by combating the Church. A _coup de liberté_ by dint of liberty! They speak of giving _droit commun_, common right. But they never do so. The Church is excluded from the right of forming _Associations d’utilité publique_ conferred by the law of 1901, though placed under this law since December 28th, 1906. The new law is only a makeshift. M. Briand said (21st December, p. 3398, _Journal Officiel_): “Evidently this legislation is not definitive. Turn the pages of history up to the Revolution; you will see that the Convention had the same difficulties as we to-day. See the number of laws voted in the year 1795 alone” (there were eleven Laws of Separation). Just so. France stands where she did in 1795.

PAGE 228

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN CATHOLIC MARYLAND

Confirmed by the Lord Proprietary by an instrument under his hand & seale.

PHILLIP CALVERT. 26th August 1650.

Enacted & made at a Geñall Session held 1 & 20 day of Aprill Anno Dm͠ 1649 as followeth viz.

An act concerning Religion.

fforasmuch as in a well

governed & Xpian Com͠on Wealth matters concerning Religion and the honor of God ought in the first place to bee taken into serious consideracon & endeavoured to bee settled. Be it therefore ordered and enacted by the Right Hoble Cecilius Lord Baron of Baltemore absolute Lord Proprietary of this Province with the advice & consent of this Generall Assembly. That whatsoever ‘pson or ‘psons within this province & the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God that is curse him or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity or the unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull speeches concerning the said Holy Trinity shal be punished with death & confiscation to the lord Proprietary and his heirs....

And bee it also further enacted by the same authority advise and assent that whatsoever ‘pson or ‘psons shall from henceforth uppon any occasion of offense or otherwise in a reproachful manner or way declare call or denominate any ‘pson or ‘psons whatsoever, inhabiting residing or traffiqueing or commerceing within this Province or within any of the Ports Harbors Creeks or Havens to the same belonging, an heritik, Scismatick Idolater, puritan, Independent, Calvenist, Anabaptist Brownist Antimmoniam, Barrowist Roundhead, Sepatist Presbiterian, popish prest, Jesuite, Jesuited papist or any other name or terme in a reproachful manner relating to matter of Religion shall for every such offense, forfeit and loose the some of tenne shillings one half thereof to be paid unto the person of whom such reproachfull words are or shall be spoken and the other half thereof to the Lord Proprietary.... And whereas the inforceing of the Conscience in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence in these Commonwealths where it hath been practised. And for the more quiet and peacable govt of this Province & the better to pserve mutuall Love & Amity amongst the inhabitants thereof. Be it therefore also by the L[-o] Proprietary with the advice and consent of this Assembly Ordeynd & enacted that noe persons whatsoever within this province or the Islands Ports Harbors Creeks thereunto belonging professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall from henceforth bee any waies troubled Molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this province ... nor any way compelled to the beliefe or exercise of any other Religion against his or her consent soe as they be not unfaithfull to the Lord Proprietary or molest or conspire against the Civill Govt established.... And that all & every person that shall presume contrary to this act directly or indirectly either in person or Estate wilfully to wrong disturb or molest any person ... in respect to his or her Religion shall be compelled to pay trebble damages to the party soe wronged or molested & for every such offence shall also forfeit 20s sterling ... or if the ptie soe offending as aforesaid shall refuse or be unable to recompense the party soe wronged ... then such offender shall be severely punished by publick whipping & imprisonmt without baile or maineprise....

The ffreemen have assented.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

_SLAV AND MOSLEM_

SOME OPINIONS

“_Slav and Moslem_ does you the greatest honour, for I quite understand how difficult it is for foreigners to comprehend so correctly as you do the origin, the value, and the destinies of our institutions.

PRINCE CANTACUZENE.

“_Russian Imperial Legation, Washington._”

“The perusal of your valuable and interesting book on the historical relations of Slav and Moslem has afforded the keenest pleasure.

A. ISWOLZY.

“_Légation Impériale de Russe près le Saint Siège._”

“We are separated from the Western world by difference of race, culture, and history, and the Western mind is very hard in understanding us. Therefore the testimony of a just and unprejudiced mind is always gratefully appreciated in Russia.

C. POBEDONOSTZEFF,

“_Petersburg._ _Président du Saint Synod_.”

“I was not only pleased with _Slav and Moslem_, but acknowledge a large accretion to my knowledge of the subject.

Your friend, LEW WALLACE, _Author of ‘Ben Hur,’ and formerly Ambassador of U.S. to Constantinople_.”

“I consider _Slav and Moslem_ the clearest exposition on the Eastern Question I have ever met with.

J. HUGHES, _Author of the “Dictionary of Islam_.”

“I regard _Slav and Moslem_ as a very valuable contribution to the history of Russia. You are entitled to great credit for your comprehensive view of the Russian Government and people.

JOHN SHERMAN,

“_Washington._ _Senator and Diplomat, U.S._”

“Your development of the historical relations of Russia and Turkey is admirable and full of interest. In vigorous and picturesque language you have presented the other side.

JOHN A. KASSON,

“_Washington._ _Senator and Diplomat_.”

“I find no words to express the historic breadth of your political summary, and the deep and genuine philosophy and truth of your treatment of this great drama.

CASSIUS MARCELLUS CLAY, _Ten years Minister of the U.S. at St. Petersburg_.”

“I have read _Slav and Moslem_ with much interest, as it contains many suggestions to fruitful thought regarding this great empire.

ANDREW D. WHITE.

_Legation of the U.S., St. Petersburg._”

“_Slav and Moslem_ is written with justice, clairvoyance, and talent.

JULIETTE ADAM.”

“I have read many books on Russia, but none met with my approval to such an extent as _Slav and Moslem_.... The statements and descriptions of the Russians are so correct.... During the years of my official stay I studied the people, their history and language, and know what I am talking about.

JOHN KAREL, _U.S. Consul at St. Petersburg_.”

“For the chapter on the Crimea alone your book deserves the thanks of all who would study the present century.

GEO. J. LEMMON, _Lecturer and Publicist_.”

SOME PRESS NOTICES

“Vivid historical sketches.... Eminently worthy of careful perusal.”--_The Press_ (Philadelphia).

“The author shows an intelligent mastery of his subject.”

_Herald_ (Boston).

“Its every sentence is clear-cut and positive.... The subjects are all treated with a vigour and boldness that rivet the attention from first to last.”

_The American_ (Baltimore).

“The author has a surprisingly firm grasp on his subject.... Vivid, thorough, original.”

_The Tribune_ (Salt Lake City, Utah).

“Intensely readable.... It is one of the notable books of the day.”--_Commercial Gazette_ (Cincinnati).

“From first to last the book is one of unusual interest.”

_The Chronicle_ (Augusta, Ga.).

“A sober and trenchant defence of Russia.”

_Times Star_ (Cincinnati)

“Mr. Brodhead writes lucidly and discriminatingly.... Interesting and suggestive throughout.”

_The Churchman_ (New York).

“J. Brodhead’s work on the Eastern is creating a more and more favorable impression throughout the country.”

_The Press_ (New York).

PLYMOUTH WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] I transcribe the following from _Le Lyon Republicain_ (ministerial anti-clerical), 1905:--“The criminality of youths from sixteen to twenty-five is increasing in shameful and overwhelming proportions. This collection of beardless scoundrels, cynically vicious, murderers, thieves, _souteneurs_, is the curse of our large cities.... It is only since fifteen or eighteen years at most that criminalists notice this remarkable depravation of youths almost children.... May we not ask if the State that has done the most for instruction has not done the least for education? Truly this frightful development of youthful criminality, of alcoholism, and anti-socialism must make us reflect.”

“_Fifteen years or eighteen at most._” The scholar anti-Christian laws of Jules Ferry, Goblet, Paul Bert, date from 1882 to 1895, and by their fruits they are judged.

[2] In January, 1906, M. Poincaré, minister of finance, in reply to M. Grousseau, admitted that up to February, 1905, the State had advanced the sum of 4,551,319 frs. to the liquidators of the Congregations.

[3] “Vel Judam non videtis, quomodo non dormit, sed festinat tradere me Judæis?” (Feria V in Cœna Domini--“See ye not Judas, how he sleeps not, but makes haste to betray me into the hands of the Jews?”)

[4] According to a recent article in the _Figaro_, 8th October, 1906, among the conscripts sent this month to the army by Paris, ninety could neither read nor write; seventy-nine could read only.

[5] It was only at the annual September Convent of the Grand Orient, 1904, that it was decided to rush the assault on the Church itself by the law of alleged separation. “Il nous reste un rude coup de collier à donner ... la separation figurera en Janvier prochain a l’ordre du jour de la chambre.”

[6] At the Free-Thought Congress.

[7] His native city recently hoisted the French flag and proclaimed its annexation to the Third Republic, 1906. Of course it was only a platonic demonstration on the part of Sicilian Freemasons.

[8] M. Rouvier had obtained a law obliging every one without exception who distilled anything to pay the usual tax on alcohol. This law was made and repealed by the same Parliament, so that now every one who has a peach or a plum tree can manufacture any kind of alcohol of poor quality, and retail it in the _buvettes_ or drink-stands which are found at every step almost; in every little vegetable and grocery shop, even in Government tobacco stores where stamps are sold. These _buvettes_ are the curse of France to-day. They have caused far greater ravages than the Franco-Prussian war.

[9] “We do not wish to see the secular arm placed at the service of free-thought,” said a deputy of the “bloc” not long since. “Meanwhile the secular arm in the service of free-thought has closed all our schools and colleges,” retorted a deputy of the Right.

[10] On November 17th, 1906, the Bishop of Nancy wrote as follows to M. Briand, Minister of Cults, regarding the sad plight of the Sisters du Saint Cœur de Marie at Nancy: “In 1902, 56 of them were huddled together in a small house situated at the extremity of their grounds.... Their spacious chapel was razed to the ground and in its place three private houses have been built. The property was sold for 527,000 francs. The liquidator promised that in conformity with the law the sisters should receive pensions. Out of the 56 there remain to-day but 44. Of these 10 are over seventy, and 22 of them are over sixty.... In these last four years they have received out of the 527,000 francs only 12,000 in three instalments.... They owe 17,800 to their baker, butcher, etc., and are threatened with starvation if further credit be denied them.... Are these aged women, who have devoted their lives to the instruction of the poor, to die of cold and hunger, M. le Ministre?” And these things happen in the twentieth century under a Government that proclaims the rights of man and of the poor!

[11] There is no such thing as proportional representation in France, and the whole electoral machinery is manipulated to give the Government a majority.

[12] Recently in the Chambers (November 13th, 1906), M. Lassies criticized that part of M. Clemenceau’s declaration in which he referred to the Holy See “as a foreigner subject to foreign influences.” “Foreign influences,” said M. Lassies, turning pointedly to M. Delcassé, “we find them here in the person of the ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who fell from power without our knowing why. Whence came the gust which caused his fall? From which frontier?”

[13] The Bill was adopted by the French Senate early in December.

[14] Everything except the _encyclique_ of August 15th, 1906.

[15] M. Lefas, deputy of the Right, maintained in the Chambers (Nov. 9th, 1906, _Journal Officiel_, p. 2448) that “the churches could not form part of the Communal domain when Communes did not exist in France. Communal domain only began with the existence of the Communes; that is to say, a hundred years ago.” Therefore these Church edifices cannot be said to belong to the Communes to-day. Formerly France was divided into parishes, and each parish had its parish church.

As to the cathedrals, if kings and nobles, like other Catholics, contributed to their embellishment or construction, they did so as Catholics. All the guilds and corporations, too, contributed, not only money, but personal labour. Would this entitle the syndicates of masons, goldsmiths, etc., of to-day to claim these cathedrals? But the chief factor in the construction of these noble edifices were the freely given toil and humble labours of the multitudes of Catholics who raised these monuments of faith. It is well known that a Catholic church cannot be dedicated as long as any one has a lien on it, that is, not until the Church’s proprietorship of the building is undisputed. Therefore the assumption that these edifices belong to the State and the Communes can only be justified on the theory of the men who, seeing a trunk lying in the hall of a hotel, said, “This trunk belongs to no one; let us say it belongs to us.”

The recent judgment of the highest court of England in the case of the “wees and the frees” of the Scotch Presbyterian Kirk is eminently applicable in this question of Jacobin appropriations and spoliations.

[16] These inventories, left incomplete after the fall of the Rouvier Ministry (February), are being completed now (November, 1906).

[17] When the daily Press is constantly recording the exploits of _cambrioleurs_ picking locks and bursting open _coffres forts_ with dynamite, it is very piquant to see the Government doing the same thing, flanked by _gens d’armes_ and the regular army. Yesterday at Nantes 1500 soldiers, with two generals and one colonel, surrounded the cathedral at 5 a.m. Forty locks were picked before noon! In _cambrioleur_ slang this would be called a “record haul.” Thanks to the injunctions of Pius X, there was no bloodshed, and M. Clemenceau and his friends proclaim that these inventories are made _sans incident_.

[18] This Protestant senator seems to have been inspired by an eloquent passage in Bossuet, “Une voix nous crie, _Marche, Marche_.”

[19] The founder and owner of _La Lanterne_ is said to be a Frankfort Jew, and it is an open secret that all the advanced Socialist and anti-clerical dailies are owned or controlled by the princes of Israel. And it is from these that English and American papers seem to derive all their information regarding the Church in France.

[20] LES CAISSES D’ÉPARGNE.

Voici le relevé des opérations des Caisses d’épargne ordinaires avec la Caisse des dépôts et consignations du 1er au 10 octobre, 1906:--

Dépôts de fonds 2.830.949 fr. 72. Retraits de fonds 6.576.856 fr. 30. Excédent des retraits 3.745.906 fr. 58.

Excédent des retraits du 1er janvier au 10 octobre, 1906, 26.784.318 fr. 60.

[21] Thus Notre Dame might witness a Catholic Mass in the morning, a theosophical reunion at noon, and a positivist conference in the evening. The Swiss Catholics, 1872-6, had some such experiences: a venerable priest died recently at Berne who had refused to give up the keys of his church for other uses, and was imprisoned for many years; while the last prisoner of Chillon was the Catholic Bishop of Fribourg, another victim of the Swiss Kulturkampf.

[22] When public men and editors in France and elsewhere descant on German _Associations cultuelles_ accepted by the Holy See that rejects them in France, they stand accused of ignorance or malevolence. M. Briand basely insinuated (Chambers, 9th November) that the Church in Germany was being ransomed by France: “Notre situation à nous est-elle la rançon de la situation d’un pays voisin? Je me borne à poser la question.” The fact is there is no such thing as _German Associations cultuelles_, each State of the Confederation has its own regulations. Bavaria has a concordat and a papal nuncio at Munich. The Governments of Würtemberg and the Grand Duchy of Baden made special conventions with the Holy See, 1857 and 1859. Alsace-Lorraine is still under the French Concordat of 1801 between Pius VII and the First Republic. Prussia and Hesse in 1873 and 1875 made special conventions with the Vatican. Prussia has a Legation to the Holy See at Rome. Moreover, in none of the German states is there separation of Church and State. They all recognize and subsidize the Catholic Church and one form of Protestantism. In Prussia several bishops are appointed senators by the King. In Alsace-Lorraine the Bishop of Strasburg is member of the Council of State. In Bavaria, Baden, Würtemberg, the prelates are members of the Upper House.

[23] What would Philippe de Commines have said had he heard of the little _coup de main_ (November 20th, 1906), by which deputies and senators in _quasi huis clos_ voted themselves an increase of 6000 francs without any “_octroi or consentement_” of the sovereign people, delivered from tyranny and servitude by the Revolution?

[24] There is in the Palace of the Doges at Venice an immense picture commemorating this Congress, where the Peace of Constance was prepared.

[25] In refreshing contrast with this record of persecution is the proclamation of religious liberty in Maryland, 1650. “The Catholics took quiet possession [of Maryland], and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home in the wide world ... every other country had persecuting laws.... Protestants were sheltered against Protestant intolerance. The disfranchized friends of Prelacy in Massachusetts and the Puritans from Virginia were welcomed to equal liberty of conscience and political rights as Roman Catholics in the province of Maryland.... In 1649 the General Assembly of Maryland passed an Act to this effect, yet five years later, when the Puritans obtained the ascendency there, they rewarded their benefactors by passing an Act forbidding that liberty of conscience be extended to ‘popery,’ ‘prelacy,’ and ‘licentiousness of opinion’” (Bancroft’s _History of the United States_, I, VII.).

Lecky corroborates this statement: “Hôpital and Lord Baltimore were the two first legislators who uniformly maintained liberty of conscience, and Maryland continues the one solitary home for the oppressed of every sect till Puritans succeeded in subverting Catholic rule, when they basely enacted the whole penal code against those who had so nobly and so generously received them” (_History of Rationalism_, II, 58).

An abridged copy of the Act of 1650, the first Act of religious toleration, will be found in the Appendix. The original from which I copied is in the archives of the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.

[26] On November 9th, 1906, the Socialist minister Viviani, after “putting out the lights in heaven,” exclaimed, “What shall we say to these sovereigns who are slaves economically speaking, to these men who enjoy universal suffrage yet suffer in servitude? How shall we appease them?”

[27] Hall Caine, explaining the title of his book, _The Eternal City_, expressed himself as follows: “In the new methods of settling international disputes, the old mother of the Pagan and the Christian worlds will have her rightful rank.... Her religious and historical interest, her artistic charm, above all the mystery of eternal life seem to point to Rome as the seat of the great court of appeal which the future will see established.”

[28] _Paradise Lost_, Book IV.

* * * * *

Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:

their precedessors=> their predecessors {pg 97}

evacute Rome=> evacuate Rome {pg 111}

public shools=> public schools {pg 206}