THE DEFEAT OF M. JULES FERRY'S CLAUSE. T HE victory of
the Moderate Liberals in the French Senate, —for it is really their victory, though it could not have been won without the aid of men who are not Liberal at all, —is a very cheering omen for the future of the Republic. The Moderates, represented by M. Jules Simon and M. Dufaure, have managed, in conjunction with those who would have been willing enough to persecute, though not to persecute reaction- aries, to defeat the attempt of M. Jules Ferry to introduce a measure for the persecution of the Jesuits and of the non- authorised religious Orders of France. The defeat is the more significant, on account of the present Prime Minister's very able and very gallant attempt to save the clause to which his colleague was committed, and so far to whitewash it as to take away its anti-religious flavour. M. de Freycinct was very indignant that Clause 7 of the Ferry Bill should be regarded as aimed at religion. It was not aimed, he said, at religion at all, but at the attempt of non-authorised Societies to interfere in the education of the youth of France. And further, in his effort to save the clause, he went so far as to promise that the clause, if carried, would only be be strictly enforced against new teaching associations of the Jesuits, or other non-authorised religious orders. With regard to those which have long been at work, great liberality was to be shown, and they were to be at liberty to obtain the requisite authorisa- tion for teaching whenever it was not absolutely neces- sary for the welfare of the youth under their instruction that their teaching should be prohibited. All this was con- ciliatory in the highest degree. M. de Freycinet took care to pose as not having himself at all desired to raise this con- troversy. It was one bequeathed to him by the Govern- ment of M. Waddington, and forced upon him by the necessity of dealing with a Bill which had passed the Assembly, so that it would have been indecent in him, and disrespectful not only to his very moderate predecessor, but to the authority of the Chamber of Deputies, to shrink from adopting a clause which they had deliberately approved. Otherwise, it was evident that M. de Freycinet felt no enthu- siasm for the clause, though he did his best to represent it as not in any degree an attack on religious bodies, but only on the undue interference of unauthorised associations in the most delicate and important sphere of domestic duty. And it was precisely on this ground that M. Dufaure boldly met him. He was opposed to the clause, he said, not because it was an attack on religion, which the French Prime Minister had en- tirely disclaimed, but because it was an attack on liberty. There were twenty-five thousand teachers at work in educating young people confided voluntarily to their care by the parents of these youths, and these twenty-five thousand teachers the clause in question would deprive of their legal right to teach; if the Government chose to enforce it. Could there be any more open and flagrant attack on the liberty of education, on the liberty of the parents to choose for their own children the teachers they thought best ? Was not the attack on liberty far more objectionable in principle for a Republican Government, than the supposed attack on religion? And certainly we hold with M. Dufaure that what a Republic is bound to guard is the private freedom of its citizens, whatever their religious convictions, so long as they do not assail the Constitution, or conspire against the State. Clause 7 of the Education Bill of M. Ferry was a de- liberate assault on this private freedom, and was as inconsistent, therefore, with the principles of a true Republic as would have been a proposal,—say by the Due de Broglie,—to render Pro- testant seminaries incapable of teaching whatever the State re- cognised as sufficient for the graduates of its Universities. The victory gained is not the victory of a religious party, but the victory of Republican liberty over the party of propagandist dogmatism. No true Republic will meddle with its citizens' liberty of action on matters so domestic as religious educa- tion. Directly you begin to regard the State as responsible for the discretion of parents on matters of this kind, you begin to substitute for the perfectly free play of social and indi- vidual conviction, the didactic infallibility of that dangerous machine, the administrative hierarchy of the State. The victory is a most satisfactory one from another point of view also,—that now for the first time the Republicans have taken up their position as the friends of liberty, even where liberty means the power of teaching what most of the party disapprove, and what their foes, on the whole, approve. This is the final test of all true liberty, that it claims the same liberty for its open enemies as for its fast friends. And it is as politically important as it is morally important that the Republic should take this side. Let the Catholic Church once feel that her teaching is to be safe, though it is to be exposed to fair competition with that of all the other Churches, and she will begin to trust the Republic, instead of doing all in her power to undermine it. After all, what every great organisation desires most, is the freedom to be itself. If the Catholic Church is assured that she will be free to teach under a Republic, she will soon begin to dread any sudden change, even though that change were to be a change back to a monarchy more congenial with some of her notions of authority and obedience. All Conservative Churches fear change, unless their position is clearly so bad that change could hardly mean anything but improvement. The Catholic Church fears it most of all. If the Republicans once per- suede her that a change might just as easily be a change for the worse, as for the better, they will secure at least her cheerful passive sanction for the Republic. What hitherto the Catho- lics have feared was, that sooner or later the Republican leaders would lead an attack on the Church. Relieve them wholly of that fear, and you would soon find them abandoning their active enmity for an attitude of acquiescence, or even approval. The French Senate has taken a commendable step in this direc- tion. It is true that the moderate Republicans would not have won the victory without allying themselves for the occa- sion with the party of reaction. It was the adhesion of a fair number of moderate Republicans to the party of counter- revolution that secured the victory. But, nevertheless, the Church may feel tolerably secure ; for so long as her teaching fosters this reactionary feeling there will always be this party of reaction with which the moderate Republi- cans may unite, if they like ; while, if ever this sort of teaching within the Church were to fail, with that failure would disappear the jealousy of the Church's influence which alone causes the demand for such provisions as M. Ferry had embodied in his Education Bill. Thus the Catholics will have every reason to expect• a similar alliance between the moderate Republicans and their own particular spokesmen in the Senate, on any new attempt of the kind contemplated by M. Jules Ferry. And for the future, they may be expected to look to the Senate as the bulwark against anything like de- structive attacks on religion, anything like propagandist un- belief. If so, the position of the Senate will be wholly changed in France. It will become the ally or guarantee of one of the greatest of the influences affecting the French people. Any attempt to overrule or silence the Senate would be resented by the Church, no less than by those moderate Liberals who like to see the Assembly checked by a more prudent and less impulsive body. And as the power of the Church must always be great in France, the Senate henceforth will take a quite new position,—as a Constitutional body trusted not merely by the more Conservative classes of Republicans, but also by much the greatest of all those organisations which are not fully penetrated by the Republican spirit. From the moment when the Church finds her safety in the action of the Senate, the Senate may feel assured that it will be safe against the attacks of the Democracy. So long as it was only the organ of a certain substantial proprietary class, which stood above the class of the peasantry at large, it was in danger. For jealousy of wealth is a much more powerful passion in France than respect for wealth. But let it once take the position of a constitutional power which the Church regards as a solid guarantee for her own safety, and it will stand in a new and very different light, as the representative of an institution which is not so much envied as feared. And though France is never again likely to be governed by the Church, she will always exert enough influence and inspire enough respect, to make her allies strong in their constitutional rights ; all the more so, if, while sometimes fighting her battles when her cause is the cause of private liberty, they are not afraid to take part against her, when her cause is the cause of intolerance, or of obsolete and petty restrictions on religious freedom.
Previous page
