BARCELONA AND THE LAY SCHOOLS
I have already referred to the popular belief that the riots in
Barcelona in July, 1909, were deliberately instigated by the Jesuits and
the Carlists acting in concert, the object of the Churchmen being
primarily to provide an excuse for closing the lay schools established
by Ferrer, the hope of the Pretender and his party being that the
disturbances would spread and assume the proportions of a revolution,
“on the waves” of which he hoped to ride to the throne.
As the course of events in Barcelona which culminated in the “Red Week”
has not unnaturally perplexed foreign observers, it may be worth while,
in the absence of any proof as to who was at the bottom of the trouble,
to suggest a hypothesis which at any rate has the merit of giving a
plausible explanation of the incidents.
Throughout the three years that Señor Maura was at the head of affairs,
Barcelona had been in a state of continual unrest and anxiety. Bomb
outrages were reported every two or three weeks with monotonous
regularity, but strange to say, the explosions seldom or never took
place in public buildings or in places where people congregate. Now and
then some inoffensive passerby was killed or wounded, and once in a way
an insignificant house would be damaged more or less seriously. But the
total injuries inflicted by this long series of bombs were so few that
the object of their authors must have been to terrorise rather than to
kill. When the King and Queen went to Barcelona in the autumn of 1908,
the inevitable bomb was let off--or was reported to have been let
off--on the sea shore, where no one could possibly have been hurt by it.
Here, by way of parenthesis, I should like to call attention to the
courage and devotion to duty shown by both the King and the Queen on
this occasion. It was considered advisable by the Ultramontane
Government that the young wife and mother should accompany her husband
to the city which has been made to bear such an evil reputation as the
home of anarchy and sedition. The nation watched the proceedings with
admiration. “What courage the Queen had, to face the chance of another
bomb being exploded in her presence so soon after that tragedy in
Madrid!” said those who appreciated the human fear which they knew must
be concealed under the smiles demanded by the exigencies of her
position. Not a word of this was permitted to appear in the Press, of
course. It was only the common talk of the common people. But one little
paragraph slipped, through some mismanagement, into a popular paper,
which revealed the Queen’s realisation of the danger she might be
running. It was to the effect that “the alteration of their Majesties’
itinerary, by which they would spend two days in Madrid instead of
travelling direct to Cataluña from Vienna, was dictated by the Queen’s
wish to embrace her children before going to Barcelona.” The next day
the paragraph was corrected by a careful explanation that the Queen had
wished to see the royal children because they were suffering from
childish ailments. But the people were not deceived by the second
notice. They said that Doña Victoria’s conduct was worthy of a Queen of
Spain.
I do not believe that the people of Barcelona would hurt a hair of Queen
Victoria’s head, nor that they would have raised a hand against King
Alfonso had he appeared there during the riots of 1909: what advantage
his secret enemies might have taken of his presence during the
disturbances is another matter. And my personal belief is that the
people of Barcelona were not responsible for any of the bomb outrages
which have made their city a byword in Europe.
Two things go to show that the industrial classes in Barcelona had
nothing to do with the bombs. The first is that they are too clever to
commit stupid crimes by which their class could not possibly benefit.
The second is that during the “Red Week,” when Barcelona was given over
to mob law, the mob, said to be responsible for the bomb outrages, did
not explode a single bomb. It is not likely that if letting off bombs
were the favourite occupation of the criminal classes of Barcelona, they
would have lost the opportunities afforded them during the first three
days of the riots. Yet when the rising was quelled and the whole
province was under martial law, the bombs began again, and twenty-three
were reported to have been exploded between August 15th and October
20th.
The stringent censorship exercised then and for three months afterwards
prevented Europe from hearing of either this remarkable feature of the
riots or their real object. But every one in Spain knew perfectly well
that the riots were directed solely against the Religious Orders,
whereas the bomb outrages never affected a building belonging to the
Church or a person attached to the Clericalist party so long as Maura
held office.
Is there any previous instance in history of a mob, said to be composed
of the lowest and most degraded of the community, firing monasteries,
convents, and churches, while they left public buildings, banks, and
rich men’s dwellings untouched? Is there any other revolt on record in
which troops of people containing the dregs of the criminal classes
protected and brought food to orphanages supported by the objects of
their attack? And can we find a parallel, in the circumstances, to the
organisation which had the markets opened for two hours every morning
and kept its forces under such complete discipline that during those two
hours persons of either sex could walk all over the town secure from
molestation?
These things I have heard from people of unimpeachable veracity who were
in Barcelona at the time; not only Catalans and Spaniards, but also
foreigners unconnected with any political party. I do not attempt to
deny that some half-hundred or so of buildings belonging to the Church
and the Religious Orders were damaged or destroyed, nor that many evil
deeds were done by the criminal hangers-on of the movement; nor do I at
all desire to minimise the crime of destroying property to gratify
feelings of personal revenge. But I do say that the mob, as a mob,
behaved with extraordinary self-restraint, and proved by their conduct
that they had no complicity with the miscreants who for so long
terrorised the unoffending inhabitants of Barcelona by exploding bombs,
without apparent intent to injure.
No one disputes that every suspect in the province was imprisoned or
fled from the country when the iron hand of military law closed on the
insurgents. Nevertheless the bomb outrages began again after the “Red
Week” came to an end, and only ceased with the fall of Maura and his
Cabinet of repression.
I have related in the previous chapter the continued shooting from the
roofs of the town, after the riots were quelled, by persons who were
never seen, and the stories that were told of the secret arming of the
Religious Orders. When we remember that the hope of the Ultramontanes
lies in a Carlist restoration, which is only possible through a
revolution, and that a revolution cannot be brought about except by
fomenting unrest and discontent in the country, and when further we
recall that the bomb explosions ceased with the fall of Maura’s
Ministry, when the officials of a Government not in sympathy with the
aspirations of the Religious Orders might have instituted inconvenient
inquiries had the bombs continued, it may at any rate be conjectured, in
the absence of any evidence as to who instigated this long series of
comparatively harmless outrages, that their authors were the only party
who expected to benefit by a subversion of the social order such as
might have ensued had the patience of the people given way under this
long series of provocations. This theory of the bombs, I may add, is
that held by the working classes.
From the moment that Moret took office in October, 1909, Barcelona began
to resume her normal aspect, although the constitutional rights were not
restored until the new Civil Governor and the new Captain-General had
taken possession of their respective offices and reported that the whole
province was quiet.
From that date a strict watch was kept upon newspaper reports of
explosions, and the _Heraldo_ got into trouble for publishing a
paragraph saying that what proved to have been merely a slight explosion
of gas was a bomb. The authorities at once explained to the Press that
the explosion was purely accidental, and that no one in Barcelona had
for a moment believed it to be otherwise, yet the report that it was a
bomb had reached the _Heraldo_ office in a form circumstantial enough to
deceive an experienced editor.
It is not surprising, therefore, that doubts are now expressed whether a
good many of the alleged bombs may not have been as fictitious as this
last. The persons who let them off, or were supposed to have let them
off, in order to maintain unrest in Barcelona, could certainly have
provided means to deceive the Press, as in the attempt upon the
_Heraldo_, frustrated by the prompt action of the Civil Governor.
Two or three bombs, if they can be given so imposing a name, were
exploded in Zaragoza in December, 1909, under the conditions which had
become so familiar to Barcelona under the Maura regime. They were made
of bits of old iron, mixed with some mild form of explosive and placed
in a meat tin, the whole being wrapped in a black cotton material, said
to be of the same make as that found on remains of bombs at Barcelona.
The tin cans on these occasions were placed in or near the porch of a
convent church, and no harm was done beyond some slight damage to the
plaster on the walls. The progressive Press, freed from censorship,
expressed the conviction that this affair was the work of the monks,
desirous of raising disturbances in Zaragoza because they were now
powerless to do so in Barcelona, with the result that the public
remained entirely indifferent to the incident. One cannot but hope,
therefore, that that may have been the expiring effort of the
bomb-throwers, whatever their real purpose was and whoever their
employers may have been.
I should like, before closing this branch of my subject, to point out
once more the wide differences that exist between the methods, objects,
and results of the Barcelona and Zaragoza bomb outrages and those of
similar attempts elsewhere on the Continent. The murderous anarchist
makes a direct attack on the personage whose death he believes to be
necessary to the furtherance of his political creed, and when he lets
off a bomb he takes care that it shall do as much damage as possible,
regardless of risk to himself. Abhorrent though the creed of the
militant anarchist is, he has at least the courage of his convictions,
since he so frequently pays the penalty of his act with his life. The
wretch who tried to murder the King and Queen of Spain on their
wedding-day was the tool of some one working on the usual anarchist
lines, and his crime bore no resemblance in detail to the work of the
mysterious party interested in terrorising, without injuring, the
inhabitants of Barcelona.
A volume of school statistics published in November, 1909, to which
further reference is made in another chapter, shows that there are in
Spain 91 protestant and 107 lay schools, 43 of which are in Barcelona.
On the other hand, there are 5,000 private Catholic schools, in addition
to some 25,000 Government schools, in which the rudiments of the
Catholic religion are supposed to be taught. These few Protestant and
lay schools are the subject of furious and unceasing abuse from the
Clericalist party and Press, who make every effort to traduce and vilify
them. It would not be edifying, nor is it necessary, to cull specimens
of their flowers of invective: the language in which the _odium
theologicum_ is habitually expressed is tolerably well known. The
schools in Barcelona, many of which were established by Ferrer, who
devoted his fortune to the work of education, are the special subject of
clerical hostility, and there is no doubt that they cost him his life.
As far as can be learnt about these schools the teaching given in them
contains absolutely nothing of the socialistic or anarchistic or other
doctrines subversive of society of which their enemies so freely accuse
them. They are more or less hostile to the form of religion taught by
the Church in Spain, which is the chief reason for the venom with which
they are attacked; but setting this on one side, there is, I am credibly
informed, nothing either in the text-books used or the teaching given to
which objection need be taken.
Nevertheless the Clericalist campaign against these schools is carried
on without intermission, and at the end of February, 1910, about the
time that Moret fell, unusual efforts were made against them. Thus in
Valencia several thousands of priests and friars, ladies of the
aristocracy, and members of the militant religious associations filled
the great open-air theatre of Jai-Alai: a telegram giving the Papal
benediction to the objects of the meeting was read, and cheers for the
Pretender were raised at intervals during the afternoon. The reactionary
papers asserted that twenty thousand people were present on this
occasion, and although this was doubtless an exaggeration, no one
attempted to deny that a very large number attended.
The number of public bodies and associations said to have sent letters
and telegrams of adherence to the objects of the meeting would be
alarming to any one unacquainted with the arithmetical methods employed
on these occasions in Spain. The grand total was given at 280,000,
“composed of 100 newspapers, 83 town councils, 135 mayors, 429 clubs,
1,714 congregations, and 272 parishes.” But no names of these parishes
and congregations were given, and verification of the figures is
impossible. It was also said that “9,000” ladies who had been present at
the meeting subsequently left their cards on the Civil Governor.
Admission to the meeting was by ticket, and there were not wanting
working men who declared that whole villages had been coerced into
attending by the action of their priests and their caciques, but I give
this for what it is worth. It is, however, safe to say that the great
majority of those present were priests and friars, and members of the
upper classes. Only one speech by a working man was mentioned in the
long report published in the _Correo Español_, although the Clericalist
papers always give prominence to the smallest indication of sympathy
with their cause on the part of the people.
The really serious feature in the affair was the Papal benediction of
the speakers and the audience. There is nothing in the Constitution to
forbid the existence of the lay schools, to protest against which the
meeting was held. Thus the Pope, by his benediction, set the seal of his
approval upon an effort to subvert, in this respect, the Constitution
of the country. But, further, the introduction by the speakers of the
name of the Pretender and the reception given to references to him
turned the whole affair into a frankly seditious gathering. The Pope’s
support of the meeting was the more significant because his official
reception of Don Jaime at the Vatican had been reported by the Spanish
and foreign Press a few days before.
The Valencia meeting was followed by others in many of the large towns,
and about this time Count Romanones, in his capacity of Minister of
Education, closed a lay school[18] on the pretext that it was
insanitary, but this only irritated the Liberals without conciliating
the Church party, and Romanones hastily declared that the school would
be re-opened as soon as certain structural alterations had been made.
On February 27th a Clericalist meeting was held at Bilbao, at which,
notwithstanding the efforts of the police and Civil Guards, serious
disturbances occurred. The circulars inviting people to the meeting were
so inflammatory in tone that the Civil Governor found it necessary to
suppress some of them. The following extracts from one of these will
give an idea of the kind of language employed.
“In the name of religion outraged, and society menaced with total ruin
... and in the name of our own personal independence, closely bound up
with the faith in our souls, let us go to the Catholic meeting to
protest against the ignorance of those who desire to separate us from
all other civilised nations, tearing faith and Christian morality from
the souls of the young, together with all decency, all virtue, and every
quality necessary to human dignity.... We unite our voices with those of
all Catholics, speaking through the mouths of the most eminent men of
science, to condemn this monstrous birth engendered by error and lies.”
The Liberal element in Bilbao is strong, and naturally great indignation
was created among the working classes by these insults to their politics
and religion. Down to that date there had been no lay school in the
city, but now it was announced that one would be opened immediately.
The noteworthy feature of this meeting was a denunciation of the
Conservatives by a Carlist speaker, who included them with the Liberals
in his fulmination against the “cowardly incendiaries of Barcelona,”
urging the Catholics “to have done with patient endurance and enter
upon the period of action.” The result of this was that the
Conservatives of Bilbao refrained from sending any representative of
their party to the banquet given after the meeting to the orators who
had spoken at it, thus definitely dissociating themselves from the
policy of the Clericalists in their city.
I have made special mention of two of these demonstrations against the
lay schools, one because of its magnitude and importance, the other
because of its results. To chronicle more of them would be tedious and
unnecessary. The campaign against these schools is unceasing: the
defence is by no means equal in vigour to the attack, and is limited to
articles now and then in the _Pais_ and an occasional meeting in their
support. Whether this apparent indifference is due to weakness on the
part of those who uphold the lay schools, or to a feeling of strength
which can afford to despise the fulminations of opponents, I am unable
to say. It is a quarrel, as the satirist says,
“_Ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum._”
THE ARMY, PAST AND PRESENT
[Illustration: A CONSCRIPT.
[To face page 199.]