On December 1st, 1906, M. Briand sent forth an ukase commanding every priest to consider public worship assimilated to public meetings, and to make a declaration to the mayor according to the law of 1881. Now the law of 1905 says that public worship cannot be regulated by the law of 1881. Moreover, this law requires the constitution of a bureau, and that a declaration be made before each meeting twenty-four hours in advance. M. Briand took upon himself to modify the law (_l’assouplir_) and to say no bureau was necessary, and that one declaration would do for a year! The clergy made no declarations. A few were made by Anarchists and Freemasons. From the 12th to the 20th December the police were kept busy making thousands of _procès verbaux_ all over France. This idea of making 65,000 prosecutions every day was soon found to be grotesque and impracticable. Moreover, under the law of 1881 it is the owner of the public hall or the café or cabaret who is prosecuted for not making the required declaration. The State and the communes being now the alleged owners of the churches since December 11th, 1906, _they_ should have been prosecuted and not the priests. This same M. Briand, who thus modified the law of 1881, had declared in the Chambers: “Common right no longer exists if you interpret it otherwise than the law” (November 9th, _Journal Officiel_, p. 2438). Since December 11th, 1906, the Church in France is very much in the condition of the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. On December 29th, 1906, a new Law of Separation was passed. It confers on 36,000 mayors the right to invest 36,000 priests with a precarious use of Church edifices, _sauf désaffection_. The time-limit is to be decided, _à l’amiable_, between the mayors and their nominees. Truly this is the _reductio ad absurdum_ of separation. M. Briand assures us “that the mayor will accord the church to the _curé_ most capable of keeping it in good condition” (_Journal Officiel_, p. 3398, December 21st, 1906). This is lay orthodoxy. “As to the period of enjoyment, it is impossible to fix it by law,” says M. Briand, “to one, two, or three years” (_Officiel_, p. 3407), “‘ce sont des questions d’espèce qui seront tranchées selon les communes’; it will vary in each commune.” To this M. Ribot replied: “‘C’est l’anarchie dans 36,000 communes.’ At every election this question will be raised, Shall we leave the church to the _curé_ or not? You are making of this question, eminently a governmental one, a municipal question, given over to dissensions, competitions, and coteries” (_Officiel_, p. 3407).