The Religious Persecution in France 1900-1906Brodhead, J. Napier (Jane Napier)
History
The Religious Persecution in France 1900-1906
Brodhead, J. Napier (Jane Napier)
Catholic Church -- France; Church and state -- France
Many of these schools were conducted by a few Sisters in buildings owned
by private individuals, and the sealing up of these premises was a
distinct violation of property rights. In one instance, the proprietor
resorted to the use of a ladder to go in and out of his house; in
another the local tribunal removed the seals and restored the house to
the owner; but the Government had the premises sealed again. I cannot
say who had the last word, but it is certain that there is open
conflict between the judiciary and the executive. The tribunals have not
yet been sufficiently _épurés_, nor the magistrates sufficiently
_domestiqués_. It is consoling to think that there are still a few
magistrates in France who have not “bowed the kneel to Baal, nor kissed
his image.”
But a complete _épuration_ of the army and of the judiciary is going on.
All the “suspects” are being displaced, from the humblest _garde
champêtre_ to the highest prefect and magistrate. It will then be smooth
sailing for the coalition in power.
The _coup de main_ against the primary schools having been resolved
upon, it is easy to understand how desirable it was that Waldeck
Rousseau should not be on the Ministerial bench to undergo
interpellations and eat his own words. A quondam Seminarist was put in
his place, and bore the brunt of the interpellations. He contented
himself with saying that “M. Waldeck Rousseau had made a
mistake”--_voilà tout!_ The Left meanwhile came to his assistance by
banging their desks and vociferating against the deputies of the Right
and Centre. A free fight was taking place in the hemicycle, when M.
Combes produced the decree, closing the session, and so ended this
disgraceful scene at two o’clock in the morning.
Of course it is pretended by Ministerialists that all these primary
schools of the poor were closed in virtue of Art. XIII of the law of
1901. This is absolutely false. Jules Laroche, a Liberal who cannot
even be suspected of “clericalism,” in his public letter, announcing to
M. Combes an interpellation, expressed himself as follows, quoting M.
Waldeck Rousseau’s own words, consigned in the _Officiel_ of March 19th,
1901:--
“As to the right to open private schools, the Chamber knows that this is
regulated by a special law; a simple declaration is enough, the school
is then under the State Inspector. Art. XIII [Associations Bill] has
absolutely nothing to do with the legislation on education, and the new
law does not touch it at all.”
“Thus spoke Waldeck Rousseau,” continues M. Laroche. “It was on this
formal, categoric, and solemn declaration that we voted Art. XIII. You,
M. le President [Combes], are not applying Art. XIII. You are violating
it, you are transforming the law of 1901 into a trap, and the loyal and
categorical declaration of M. Waldeck Rousseau into the act of a
traitor” (_en œuvre de trahison_).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account