my mind, the most serious loss. Money can always be found again, but
when impious vandals have destroyed or dispersed these libraries and
archives, they can never be replaced. All English students deplore the
irreparable loss, caused by the cynical and base uses made of invaluable
manuscripts by reforming vandals in the sixteenth century.
4. The Law of Separation deprives communes of the right to give any
subventions for religious worship--though the State inscribes on its own
budget the stipends to chaplains of lyceums frequented by children of
the rich, notwithstanding Art. II.
5. A whole class of citizens are placed _hors la loi_, in that they are
deprived of the right of trial by jury for offences amenable to this
procedure. They (priests) are placed on the same footing as convicted
anarchists.
6. Divine service is assimilated to any public meeting. A band of
Socialists may fill the church and render prayer impossible by their
irreverent attitude but they cannot be expelled unless they resort to
violence.
7. The same class of individuals can invade any cathedral at any hour
and insist on inspecting, gratis, all its treasures (_objets mobiliers
classés_). In other words, these venerable edifices, the church of Brou,
Notre Dame, etc., are treated already like public museums, less well in
fact. And all this, we are told seriously, is “Separation.”
Meanwhile the two parties most nearly concerned in this question, the
Holy See and the French people, thirty-five million Catholics, have
never been consulted.
M. Briand with remarkable impudence asserted that, since thirty-five
years, the country had sighed after “Separation,” though he well knows
that no one thought about it but the Grand Orient. He himself admitted,
in the same session, that the question did not exist (_n’était pas
posée_) at the beginning of this legislature (1902), and was only raised
by the Pope’s violations of the Concordat. This lie, which tends to
become historic, was amply exploded, when M. Combes was convicted in the
Chambers of having suppressed a document, which amply justified Pius X’s
action in the case of the Bishops of Dijon and Laval, which the lodges
used as a _casus belli_. Moreover, we must remember that the current
Jacobin thesis is that the Seventeen Articles of the Concordat, which
alone were signed by Pius VII, and the Seventy-six Organic Articles,
added _ex parte_ by Napoleon, in violation of every code of honour and
equity, form an intangible whole. Nevertheless, the Seventeen Articles
of the Convention which were alone signed by Pius VII and Napoleon, in
Messidor l’an IX, took effect as soon as the ratifications were
exchanged. The churches, seminaries, etc., were immediately “placed at
the disposal of the Bishops,” and the stipulated indemnities were
forthcoming.
It was not till Germinal l’an X that the Seventy-six Organic Articles
were promulgated, together with the Convention.
Now no one surely can be accused of violating articles regarding which
he has never been consulted. Yet this is precisely the ground taken by
the Jacobins.
A senator of the Right alleged, in defence of the Concordat, Art. 1134
of the Code Civil: “Conventions legally formed are a law to those who
make them. They can only be revoked, by mutual consent, by those who
make them, and for causes which the law recognizes.”
Thereupon the reporter replied: “There was a Convention between Pius VII
and Napoleon; this Convention formed a whole (_un ensemble_) with the
Seventy-six Organic Articles.” And as no Government has ever been able
to enforce these articles, some of which are rankly heretical, the
reporter alleged Art. 1184 of the Code against Art. 1134 to defend the
Government’s _ex-parte_ denunciation of the Concordat. This Art. 1184
declares that “a Convention is rescinded when one of the parties does
not keep his engagements.”
In other words, they say Pius VII and his successors have always
protested against the Seventy-six Organic Articles which the former did
not sign, therefore we are justified in denouncing, _ex parte_, the
Convention or Concordat of Seventeen Articles signed by Pius VII and
Napoleon.
It is by this sophism that the Third Republic justifies the repudiation
of a portion of the National Debt; for the payment of annual indemnities
to the Catholic clergy was undoubtedly placed on the “Grand Livre” of
France by the Constituante, and recognized as part of the National Debt
by succeeding legislatures, before and since 1801.
Recently, when it was proposed to suppress, without indemnity, the
_Majorats_ of the _ancien régime_, M. Rouvier, Président de Conseil,
indignantly rejected the motion, saying, “Il ne faut jamais que la
signature de la France soit protestée.” But when it is a question of
mere Catholics, the sense of national honour becomes blunted. They are
_hors la loi_. This form of jurisprudence has been familiar to
highwaymen from time immemorial--for them, the unarmed are always _hors
la loi_.
M. Raiberti, a deputy from Nice, eloquently protested against the vote
of urgency, declaring that the country had never been consulted. “No
law,” he said, “can be just and stable which does not express the wishes
of the people.” All in vain. The Socialist voting machine worked
automatically at every turn towards the end.
It is an incontestable fact that Separation has never appeared on any
programme these thirty-four years, except on that of 181 deputies at the
elections of 1902. Nevertheless, 341 (against 249) have just voted for
this law of Separation that is the negation of fifteen centuries of
national history.[11]
The _Gazette de France_ calculates the number of electors represented by
these 341 deputies who carried the Separation Bill in the Chambers in
July:--
“On a total of 11,219,992 French electors only 2,997,063 pronounced
yesterday by their deputies in favour of the denunciation of the
Concordat and the spoliation of the Church, voted by a so-called
majority.
“We must bear in mind that at the elections of 1902 the majority
only vanquished by 200,000 votes out of 8,000,000 voters inscribed,
and there are 400,000 functionaries. Thus spoke a senator (de
Cuverville), and he further quoted the declarations of M. Deschanel
in a public speech, July, 1905.
“A minority, he declared, governs the country, and a law voted by a
certain majority represents 25 to 30 per cent. One deputy is
elected by 22,000, another by 1000. The Department du Nord has
500,000 more inhabitants than six departments of the south-east,
yet it has five deputies less. Roubaix, with 125,000 inhabitants,
has one deputy, while the Department of Basses Alpes, with 115,000
inhabitants, has five deputies.”
It is easy to see how a little judicious electoral geometry and
arithmetic will always give the Government a majority. Each
_arrondissement_ having a deputy, it is only necessary to cut up a given
district, notably anti-clerical, into a great many _arrondissements_, in
order to secure an increased number of deputies, _blocards_; and vice
versa the process need only be reversed in districts suspected of
“clericalism.” We must also remember that at least one-third of the
electors never vote, and so the Government can always have a majority.
This Separation Law is, as M. Briand said, only “transitory.” It is, I
repeat, eminently perfidious. There is no form of tyranny, vexation, and
spoliation which cannot be legalized by its equivocal articles. It
contains all that is necessary to eliminate Catholicism from France as
far as public worship is concerned.
On June 3rd I wrote, “What these Jacobins want is to have the law voted
before the elections of May, 1906, and then say to the people, ‘You see
the law is voted, and nothing is changed.’” At the final session after
the vote, M. Briand, in a speech now pasted up all over the country,
said, “Our work is done. What have you to say? You tried to trouble the
conscience of the French Catholics, but can you find anything in the
Bill to warrant your grievances? Dare now to tell the people the
churches are to be closed, the priests proscribed.” Yet all this, alas!
arrived almost immediately after the first Separation Law made in 1795.
“No one,” echoed M. Deschanel, a smooth-tongued, dainty politician like
M. Rousseau, “can maintain that this law is the work of hatred and
persecution, unless it is travestied by some profoundly dishonest
Government.”
“Like that of M. Combes, who travestied Waldeck Rousseau’s Associations
Bill,” rejoined a deputy of the Right.
This Law of Separation bears the same imprint as that of 1901; both
emanated from the same quarter. It is, I repeat, a masterpiece of guile
and arbitrary tyranny. Any sense can be given to the ambiguous language
in which the most important articles are couched, and their
interpretation is not to be left to ordinary civil tribunals. The _jus
et norma_ in all doubtful questions is to be the Conseil d’Etat. In
other words, the Grand Conseil of the Grand Orient is to be the supreme
court of first and last appeal.
The Church in France might just as well descend into the catacombs here
and now. It will come to this, unless some cataclysm rouse the French to
a violent uprising, in which the Third Republic and all its works and
ways will be swept away.
The Senatorial Commission is composed of fourteen Jacobin Freemasons.
Their rulings are a foregone conclusion. The Separation Bill may be
considered already voted in the Senate.
Great crimes against liberty, justice, and humanity cannot be
circumscribed by national frontiers. They offend all Christendom, and
though nations may, supinely, say “Am I my brother’s keeper?” they pay
the penalty sooner or later. France in acute revolution will mean Europe
in flames, as in 1792.
THE PROGRESS OF ANARCHY
_12th October, 1905._
The stories that are going the rounds of the whole European Press leave
little doubt as to the fact, that a once great, free nation had her
Foreign Minister, M. Delcassé, kept in office by the King of England
while he was in Paris this spring, and that two months later, he was
dismissed at the behest of Germany, who tore up the Anglo-French
Convention regarding Morocco and inaugurated the Congress of Algeciras.
No nation can act as France has done with impunity.[12]
This is curious too when we consider that France is so sensitive about
the _ingérence_ of even a spiritual sovereign, that the denunciation of
a Concordat and the rupture with the Holy See were ascribed to the fact
that Pius X had taken the liberty of suspending two French bishops!
It is also interesting to recall that the Bill of alleged Separation
was first voted at the Congress of Free-Thought held at Rome, in
September, 1904. The motion was made by Professor Haeckel, of the
University of Jena, Prussia, that: “We congratulate M. Combes in his
struggle for free-thought against theocratical oppression, and for the
radical separation of Church and State.” Allemane, a French Socialist
deputy, exclaimed: “This is not enough. We want the abolition of the
Church.” Robin, another French deputy, rejoined: “We are equally opposed
to both. We demand the abolition of Church and State.”
I have already stated how the annual convent of the Grand Orient of
France notified M. Combes (September, 1904) of their wishes regarding
the passage without delay of the Separation Bill. This Bill was voted,
or rather enregistered, by the Chamber of Deputies in July, as it will
be done shortly by the Senate.[13]
Yesterday in Paris, the bureau of the “Federation of International
Free-Thought” actually intimated to the French Senate its behest that
the Law of Separation of Church and State be voted, without discussion
or amendment, before December 31st. When we consider that this bureau is
composed of one French Socialist Freemason deputy, the others being
German, Belgian, and Italian, it seems preposterous! It would be so,
even if all were Frenchmen, seeing that the Senate is supposed to be a
free deliberative body, having the responsibility of accepting or
rejecting what is done in the lower House.
The London _Saturday Review_ is almost the only organ in the English
language which seems adequately to appreciate the enormity of the
religious persecution in France.
“The extraordinary conspiracy of silence on this momentous matter, in
the English Press,” writes the _Saturday Review_, London (July 8th,
1905), “is doubtless due to the fact that English Christians and
gentlemen are usually considered unfit to represent English newspapers
on the Continent. The Paris correspondents of our leading journals,
being nearly all men of oriental extraction, cannot, however honourable
and enlightened, be expected to entertain any interest in the fate of
the Christian religion. We are invariably led by these gentlemen to
believe that all is for the best in the best of republics. When, a
fortnight ago, France suddenly realized that she was within sight of a
war with her ancient foe on the other side of the Rhine, a thrill of
terror passed over the land at the mere thought that while engrossed in
the work of dechristianizing France, and hustling monks and nuns up and
down the country, the politicians in power had demoralized the army,
neglected the navy, and left the frontiers almost entirely unprotected.
Things have quieted down since then, but none the less there is a
feeling of unrest which makes people dread the passage of a law that
may lead to internal divisions and disorders even more serious than
those which agitate France at the present time.”
Referring to the Bill of alleged Separation, the _Saturday Review_
continues: “_La Lanterne_ (the organ of the ‘bloc’) intimates that ‘it
only accepts the Bill as it stands as a preliminary; we must silence the
priests and prevent them from infusing any more of the virus of religion
into the minds of the people.’ ... To a thinking foreigner, the
spectacle presented by contemporary France is an amazing one. Here is a
great nation, which for sixteen centuries has proclaimed herself ‘eldest
daughter of the Church,’ renouncing her great position as protector of
the Catholics in the east and breaking off her connexion with the
Vatican, at a time when Germany is menacing her and proclaiming at Metz,
of all places in the world, her imperial wish to become more friendly
with the Church.”
This is an allusion to the Emperor William’s having himself invested by
the papal legate with the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, surrounded by
German cardinals and prelates, as well as the highest military
dignitaries of Alsace-Lorraine. For me, the dismissal of M. Delcassé and
the whole Moroccan incident are the handwriting on the wall which the
French are slow to read. On the Feast of St. Michael, September 29th,
the Minister of Public Worship held high revelry at a banquet of five
hundred Freemasons in the church of the recently expropriated convent of
the Ursuline nuns at Ave-ranche, just opposite that wonderful pile known
as the Mount St. Michel, a mediæval monastery and church. It is not
stated whether--like Balthazar--he sent for the vessels of the temple.
The crimes against justice, liberty, and humanity committed in France,
since four years, are without a parallel in Europe since the Revolution
of 1790, if we except, of course, the atrocities in the Turkish Empire.
But most dire racial and religious antagonism may be alleged on behalf
of the Turk. In Spain, too, similar violations of liberty, justice, and
humanity have been committed during the nineteenth century, but this was
done in the heat and turmoil of revolutionary and anarchist upheavals.
In France they were committed in cold blood, under cover of law. Nearly
27,000 Catholic schools, freely patronized by Catholic parents, have
been suppressed, thousands of aged men and women have been dragged out
of their homes and cast into the street, _vi et armis_, the regular army
being employed in a great many cases. Their homes, built up by years of
patient labour, have been confiscated and sold for a trifle. Yet many of
them were authorized and had contracts with the Government. Recently,
convent and school buildings, estimated at 200,000 francs, were sold for
2200 francs.
Two days ago, forty-three nuns of the Benedictine Order were expelled
from their homes; eleven of them were over seventy, and quite infirm.
The Congregations who were wary enough not to ask for authorization, and
realized what they could before going into exile, are not to be pitied
so much. Unfortunately, the majority fell into the Government’s trap and
asked for authorization, which obliged them to declare all their assets,
that have been confiscated, and of which they will never see one cent.
Not only have all the assets been consumed in the process called
“liquidation,” but the Government has been obliged to put up over
4,000,000 of the public money to cover the expenses of the
“liquidators.” So ends the myth of the “billions of the Congregations,”
held out as a glittering lure by Waldeck Rousseau in 1900 to his
Socialist henchmen.
The terrible inroads, made by anti-patriotism and anarchical Socialism
by means of public-school teachers, are seriously alarming the creators
of this modern Frankenstein. Domiciliary perquisitions are being made
just now, in many cities, to seize the leaders of a conspiracy to
debauch the young conscripts who begin their two years’ military service
now. A brochure, called _Crosse en l’air_ (meaning military revolt), has
reached, it is said, the million mark of circulation, in spite of the
Government.
The conclusion of the Russo-Japanese war is an illustration of what I
wrote in _Slav and Moslem_ ten years ago, page 170: “Henceforth
commerce, not ideas, will rule in the council chambers of the world.
Politics will be forged in counting-houses and warehouses, ‘where only
the ledger lives,’ in whose dusty atmosphere none but merchantable ideas
are current. Wars will be declared, peace be made, alliances formed or
repudiated, according to their probable effect on the pulse of the
market.”
Without wishing to derogate from the merit of Mr. Roosevelt’s good
offices, I am convinced he could not have succeeded if the financial
consideration had not rendered the belligerents docile. Japan was
absolutely at the end of her financial resources; the Russian coffers
were not far from empty. By the intermediary of the President, both
parties were given to understand that not a yen or kopeck more could
they borrow if peace were not concluded there and then. Any prolongation
of that war would have meant financial panic in many countries, chiefly
in France. Israel, by its bankers, has its hand on the throttle in
Christendom, and can make for peace and war more than all the peace
congresses. When we reflect on the three cruel, uncalled-for wars which
followed the Hague Conference in 1898, we can only tremble for the
future, if there is to be a new peace congress. In spite of conferences
and Jew bankers, guns will continue to “go off by themselves.” These
Delcassé revelations are not calculated to render the Germans more
friendly to France or England, and the knowledge they have acquired of
France’s inability and unwillingness to fight must be a strong
temptation to a nation whose population is increasing at a formidable
rate, in spite of emigration, while that of France is stationary, not to
say steadily decreasing.
Belgium, that great country in a very small compass, has doubled hers
since 1830. With 7,000,000 inhabitants, the figure of her business
operations is now the same as that of France with 38,000,000. This last
statement was made by M. Leygnes, ex-minister, in a recent political
speech, regarding the steady decadence of France under Jacobin rule
since twenty years.
No country wants war, but all fear it. The causes of unrest are manifold
and legion.
In an important political speech made by Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli) at
Aylesbury, September 20th, 1873, he expressed himself as follows: “I can
assure you, gentlemen, that those who govern must count with new
elements. We have to deal not with emperors and cabinets only. We must
take into consideration secret societies, who can disconcert all
measures at the last moment, who have agents everywhere determined men
encouraging assassinations, and capable of bringing about a massacre at
any given moment.”
The passage is quoted in an article in the _Nineteenth Century_ (1876),
“A History of the ‘Internationale.’” The “Internationale,” by the way,
is fast superseding the “Marseillaise.” The verse of blasphemy against
Christ and His mother is followed by one which ends with these words:
“Our balls are for our generals.” A short time ago there were prolonged
riotous strikes on the eastern frontier. A striker was killed
accidentally. Thereupon M. Berteaux, the Minister of War, retired a
general and imprisoned a captain and a lieutenant for the crime of
having allowed the lancer regiments to carry lances when they were sent
out against the strikers!
To propitiate these rioters the Minister of War went to Longwy, and the
strikers marched past singing the “Internationale,” and the Minister of
War actually saluted the red flag! He afterwards protested in the
newspapers that he did not salute the red flag, but the men and women
who were escorting it! This Minister of War began life as dry-goods
commercial traveller. He is to-day a millionaire _agent de change_ at
the Paris Bourse, and is said to ambition the presidential chair.
Shakespeare wrote: “Motley is the only wear.” In France, everything
seems to be running to red. I have witnessed here two “free-thought”
funerals, one last April and another yesterday, in which pall and
banners were red, and even the coffin was draped in flaming red. Red “is
the only wear,” though it is not easy to understand why “free-thought”
should necessarily blush--for itself. At the “Free-Thought” convention
held, recently, at Paris, under government patronage, anarchy dominated,
just as it did at Rome last September. Red was the keynote.
THE ABOLITION OF THE CONCORDAT
_February 3rd, 1906._
On August 19th, 1905, I described some of the odious features of the
alleged Separation Bill voted by the House of Deputies on July 7th, at
“midnight, the hour of crime.” It may truly be ranked in that category
to which Cicero referred when he said, “There are laws which are merely
conventions among thieves.” “The vote of the Senate is a foregone
conclusion,” I wrote. The order had been given; every amendment (there
were about a hundred) was rejected automatically, and the law was voted,
December 6th, 1905, by a majority of 180 to 101. “The French
Government,” I wrote (June 30th, 1900), “is on the verse of apostasy. Is
this a cause, a presage, or a symptom of national decadence? All three I
fear. Nations stand or fall with their governments. They have the
government they deserve, and are punished for the evil doings of their
rulers! ‘I gave them a king in my wrath,’ was once written of the Jews.
Is there sufficient vitality left in the French national constitution to
reject the poison which is undermining it, and of which alcoholism,
unknown in France fifty years ago, is but the outward and visible sign?”
To-day this apostasy, not of the nation, but of the French State, is
complete. It is the latest, though by no means the last act of a series
of anti-religious laws, elaborated by the Grand Orient and voted by
majorities and cabinets formed by them. I dealt with this subject on
March 17th, 1900, and said, then, that “with a Parliament and Ministry
like this any legislation is possible.”