Part 2 — APPENDIX
Reading edition
Page 29
Séance du 28 Decembre, 1906.
Au Sénat Journal Officiel, page 1236.
M. DELAHAYE: “M. Briand’s law is older than himself. We find traces of it in all the Masonic convents.... Gentlemen, why are we going to vote this additional law, as we did the first Separation Law, without changing an iota?... Because the lodges have so decided.
“The Convent, the public should be told, is the general assembly of the lodges.... The Convent, called during the Revolution La Convention, is the source of all our evils. On 12 November, 1904, brother Lafferre (a senator), thirty-third degree, read the following ordre du jour: ‘The general assembly of the Grand Orient addresses to M. Combes warm assurances of sympathy and confidence, and begs him to persevere courageously in the struggle to defend the Republic against clericalism, and accomplish social, military, and fiscal reforms. The Assembly demands that at the session of January, 1905, Separation and the retraites ouvrières be discussed simultaneously.’”
M. Lafferre and the reporter of the new Separation Law here applauded ironically.
M. Delahaye continued: “Let us pass to the Convent of 1905, séance 23 September, 1905. “Le Frère Roret, reporter (of the Masonic Commission): ... A wish more important, and which will be adopted without discussion, emanates from the Congress of the region of Paris. It regards the Separation and has been slightly modified by the (Masonic) Commission (of political and social studies). The Congress demands that the Separation Law voted in the Chambers be amended by the Senate. Your Commission judges that it is most important that this law be voted immediately and promulgated before the legislative elections (May, 1906), so that the country may see that it is a liberal law and not at all vexatious.... Your Commission proposes the following vote: ‘The Convent emits the wish that the law, imperfect but perfectible, be adopted by the Senate as rapidly as possible and promulgated before the elections, but that it be amended later by the Republican Parliament and rendered more distinctly laïque.’”
M. Delahaye continued: “It is well to notice that laic has two meanings. For us it means not ecclesiastic; for Freemasons it means atheistic, anti-Catholic.... I have proved, incontestably, that M. Briand is here as the mouthpiece of Freemasonry, to which he says he does not belong.... There is a privileged Congregation in France which holds property as a société immobilière of the Grand Orient by ‘interposed persons.’ This Congregation is about to sell its real estate of the Rue Cadet (Paris). It received an offer of 1,250,000 francs. The State offers to buy it for 1,300,000 francs, to be used as a telephone office.... I wish to know why the State does not simply expropriate this Congregation, seeing that it is illegal, because this société immobilière is simply a personne interposée?... Gentlemen, the book just published by one of your former friends, M. Flourens (ex-minister), La France Conquise Edward VII and Clemenceau, is going to enlighten rulers deaf to the voice of the Pope (who had condemned Masonry since 1728). The Bourbons and the French nobility, whom Freemasonry had doomed to death, were dancing on the first floor of the lodges, while overhead sentence was being passed on them.... In spite of many changes of government since a century, we are descending steadily, because your principles, destructive of family, country, and private property, have entered into our legislation.... We have a fine army, but at your touch it becomes no more than a national guard. We have many vessels, but no navy.... Ere long kings and emperors, who now utilize Freemasonry, will end by saying, ‘This instrument is very dangerous.’”
There were cries of “Clôture, clôture.” The discussion was closed. No one replied to M. Delahaye.
Pages 113-125
Commenting on the annual Convent of the Grand Orient, September, 1906, the Journal de Génève, the leading Swiss Protestant daily, made the following statements:—
“LE RÔLE DE LA MAÇONNERIE
“Septembre, 1906.
“Il ne faut pas se dissimuler que la franc-maçonnerie tient entre ses mains les destinées du pays (la France). Quoiqu’elle ne compte que vingt-six mille adhérents, elle dirige à sa guise la politique française. Toutes les lois dont le catholicisme se plaint si amèrement ont été d’abord élaborées dans ses convents. Elle les a imposées au gouvernement et aux Chambres. Elle dictera toutes les mesures qui seront destinées à en assurer l’application. Nul n’en doute, et personne, non pas même les plus indépendants, n’oserait heurter de front sa volonté souveraine. Il serait aussitôt brisé, celui qui se permettrait seulement de la méconnaître.
“Jamais, depuis l’époque où Rome commandait aux rois et aux princes, on ne vit pareille puissance. Et cette puissance est d’autant plus forte, à cette heure, qu’elle vient de subir victorieusement une crise redoutable. Après l’affaire des fiches, on croyait la maçonnerie morte, tout au moins bien malade; mais, à force d’audace, elle a triomphé de ses ennemis, qui déjà sonnaient joyeusement l’hallali. Les deux tiers des membres de la Chambre actuelle sont francs-maçons.
“La volonté de la franc maçonnerie, nul ne l’ignore plus, c’est de détruire le catholicisme en France. Elle se dresse comme une Eglise contre l’Eglise de Rome. Elle n’aura ni cesse ni répit, qu’elle ne l’ait jetée bas, qu’elle n’en ait semé les poussières au vent. Tous ses ressorts sont uniquement tendus vers ce but. Les autres religions, si même elle ne les ignore momentanément, elle paraît les ménager. Elle se dit sans doute que, le catholicisme ayant rendu l‘âme sous son étreinte, l’anéantissement des autres confessions ne serait pour elle que jeu d’enfant.
“Mais l’adversaire n’est pas encore terrassé, auquel elle s’était attaquée. Il est comme Antée, qui, toutes les fois qu’il touchait le sol, retrouvait de nouvelles forces. Elle s’en rend bien compte. C’est pourquoi, crainte que d’un tour de reins désespéré il ne se dresse dans toute sa vigueur, elle n’a point poussé jusqu’ici la lutte à fond. Parfois même elle semble accorder une trêve; elle rentre dans ses quartiers. Mais, dès que la vigilance des catholiques lui paraît suffisamment endormie, elle se jette de nouveau sur sa proie. Elle continuera cette tactique jusqu’au triomphe définitif.
“Ce triomphe est-il prochain ou lointain? Pour le moment, la défiance de Rome est bien éveillée, et Pie X n’est peut-être pas de ces hommes qui se laissent prendre aux feints désarmements.
“Quelques-uns se demanderont comment il peut se faire qu’une minorité si faible gouverne ainsi tout un pays. C’est pourtant très simple. D’abord les maçons sont étroitement unis; et l’union fit toujours la force. Ensuite, appartenant tous aux classes moyennes, ils exercent par leur situation personnelle, par leurs fonctions—tous les gros bonnets de l’administration sont affiliés à la franc-maçonnerie—une influence très grande. L’on peut dire qu’ils disposent de toutes les faveurs gouvernementales; et ces faveurs, ils ne les distribuent qu’à bon escient. Non seulement donc ils tiennent à leur discrétion tous ceux qui occupent un poste quelconque de l’Etat, mais encore tous ceux qui aspirent à en occuper un, et ils sont légion. Ça leur fait une armée formidable, disciplinée par l’intérêt.
“On comprend que, dans ces conditions, la franc-maçonnerie n’ait qu’à faire un signe aux pouvoirs publics pour qu’elle soit immédiatement obéie. Quoi qu’elle décide, ce sera exécuté sur l’heure.
“La franc-maçonnerie, dit-il, sait mieux que le gouvernement lui-même, quelle somme de résistance, en ce moment, le catholicisme peut opposer à un assault décisif. Elle n’ignore pas que, quoiqu’il soit très ébranlé, il serait très hasardeux de le vouloir abattre d’un dernier coup. Elle craint surtout que, si elle ne parvenait pas à lui faire exhaler le soupir suprême, il ne retrouvât une nouvelle vie, la volonté et l’énergie de vaincre à son tour.
“La franc-maçonnerie se gardera de compromettre, dans une lutte chanceuse, les fruits de longs efforts. Elle a emprunté sa devise à Rome: ‘Patiens quia æterna,’ et elle attendra qu’elle puisse frapper à coup sûr. Les probabilités sont donc pour que, tout en s’opposant à ce que des relations soient renouées avec le Saint-Siège, elle ne chassera pas les catholiques de leurs derniers retranchements, c’est-à-dire de leurs églises; elle les y laissera tranquilles, jusqu’au jour où, par un nouveau coup d’audace, elle s’en emparera.
“Un de ses orateurs a prophétisè qu’avant peu on entendrait des ‘batteries d’allégresse’ sous les voûtes de Notre-Dame; et les prophéties maçonniques ne se sontelles pas souvent réalisées?”
Page 204
On November 9th, 1906, M. Briand described the Status of the Church in France as follows (Officiel, 2459): “The churches are affected to public worship and must remain so indefinitely.... It is our duty to leave them open.... Reunions are possible, you may have them. The priest may live in direct communication with the people, he may receive manual gifts. Perhaps the Catholic hierarchy about which you are so much concerned will suffer. Perhaps this faculty left to the faithful to live with their priest haphazard (au hasard de la rencontre) will soon dry up the revenues of the priests; it will certainly dry up those of the bishops.”
It is well also to recall here the words pronounced by M. Briand, October 17th, 1905 (Journal Officiel, 1223), regarding the Associations cultuelles: “They will be hardly born on the 11th December, 1906. They will not have had time to obtain funds. If we deprive them of the patrimony of the fabriques and menses episcopales it will be impossible for them to maintain public worship, and the faithful will be unable to practise their religion.”
Yet the Government impudently declares to-day that the Catholics are hard to please!
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).
The new Law of Separation (December 29th) abolishes the sequestration ordered on December 11th of all Church revenues, etc., till December, 1907. It turns over immediately to the communes and to lay institutions all the property of the Church. Yet on November 9th (Journal Officiel, p. 2461) M. Briand stoutly resisted the Left, clamouring for this very thing. “We must not raise illusory hopes,” he said.
“No,” cried a deputy, “it will be like the milliard of the Congregations.”
“There are fourteen millions of revenue,” continued M. Briand,” ...but are they ‘liquid,’ free of charges? The communes are stretching out their hands to receive. You will give them what? Nests of lawsuits. Yes, nests of vipers that will poison the communes with their venom.”
To explain this change of policy M. Briand said: “We have acquired the certitude that the situation is without issue. It was impossible to expect that during the next year regular associations (of 1905) will be constituted to claim this property of the fabriques. We cannot remain another whole year in this uncertainty” (Journal Officiel, p. 3396, December 21st). A French proverb says: “Souvent femme varie bien fou qui s’y fie.”
And in the same session M. Briand, to explain why it was not possible to lend the churches to curés under the new law for any definite time, said: “In fixing no term the Government is logical. Having a law to execute (that of 1905), and having the conviction that the Church will end by accepting it, we could not give to uncontrolled associations under the law of 1901, which are a concession to the Church, the same advantages as to Associations cultuelles” (1905) (Journal Officiel, p. 3407, December 21st, 1906).
The new law of December 28th, 1906, says the use of the churches can be obtained by the declaration of the curé individually, or of an association formed according to the law of 1901, or rather according to certain articles of this law only. The Church may not avail herself of the articles which permit the formation of associations called “of public utility”—like the S.P.A., for instance.
This is what these Jacobins understand by combating the Church. A coup de liberté by dint of liberty! They speak of giving droit commun, common right. But they never do so. The Church is excluded from the right of forming Associations d’utilité publique conferred by the law of 1901, though placed under this law since December 28th, 1906. The new law is only a makeshift. M. Briand said (21st December, p. 3398, Journal Officiel): “Evidently this legislation is not definitive. Turn the pages of history up to the Revolution; you will see that the Convention had the same difficulties as we to-day. See the number of laws voted in the year 1795 alone” (there were eleven Laws of Separation). Just so. France stands where she did in 1795.
PAGE 228
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN CATHOLIC MARYLAND
Confirmed by the Lord Proprietary by an instrument under his hand & seale. Enacted & made at a Geñall Session held 1 & 20 day of Aprill Anno Dm̃ 1649 as followeth viz.
PHILLIP CALVERT. 26th August 1650. An act concerning Religion.
fforasmuch as in a well
governed & Xpian Com̃on Wealth matters concerning Religion and the honor of God ought in the first place to bee taken into serious consideracon & endeavoured to bee settled. Be it therefore ordered and enacted by the Right Hoble Cecilius Lord Baron of Baltemore absolute Lord Proprietary of this Province with the advice & consent of this Generall Assembly. That whatsoever ‘pson or ‘psons within this province & the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God that is curse him or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity or the unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull speeches concerning the said Holy Trinity shal be punished with death & confiscation to the lord Proprietary and his heirs....
And bee it also further enacted by the same authority advise and assent that whatsoever ‘pson or ‘psons shall from henceforth uppon any occasion of offense or otherwise in a reproachful manner or way declare call or denominate any ‘pson or ‘psons whatsoever, inhabiting residing or traffiqueing or commerceing within this Province or within any of the Ports Harbors Creeks or Havens to the same belonging, an heritik, Scismatick Idolater, puritan, Independent, Calvenist, Anabaptist Brownist Antimmoniam, Barrowist Roundhead, Sepatist Presbiterian, popish prest, Jesuite, Jesuited papist or any other name or terme in a reproachful manner relating to matter of Religion shall for every such offense, forfeit and loose the some of tenne shillings one half thereof to be paid unto the person of whom such reproachfull words are or shall be spoken and the other half thereof to the Lord Proprietary.... And whereas the inforceing of the Conscience in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence in these Commonwealths where it hath been practised. And for the more quiet and peacable govt of this Province & the better to pserve mutuall Love & Amity amongst the inhabitants thereof. Be it therefore also by the L[-o] Proprietary with the advice and consent of this Assembly Ordeynd & enacted that noe persons whatsoever within this province or the Islands Ports Harbors Creeks thereunto belonging professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall from henceforth bee any waies troubled Molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof within this province ... nor any way compelled to the beliefe or exercise of any other Religion against his or her consent soe as they be not unfaithfull to the Lord Proprietary or molest or conspire against the Civill Govt established.... And that all & every person that shall presume contrary to this act directly or indirectly either in person or Estate wilfully to wrong disturb or molest any person ... in respect to his or her Religion shall be compelled to pay trebble damages to the party soe wronged or molested & for every such offence shall also forfeit 20s sterling ... or if the ptie soe offending as aforesaid shall refuse or be unable to recompense the party soe wronged ... then such offender shall be severely punished by publick whipping & imprisonmt without baile or maineprise....
The ffreemen have assented.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
SLAV AND MOSLEM
SOME OPINIONS
“Slav and Moslem does you the greatest honour, for I quite understand how difficult it is for foreigners to comprehend so correctly as you do the origin, the value, and the destinies of our institutions.
Prince Cantacuzene.
“Russian Imperial Legation, Washington.”
“The perusal of your valuable and interesting book on the historical relations of Slav and Moslem has afforded the keenest pleasure.
A. Iswolzy.
“Légation Impériale de Russe près le Saint Siège.”
“We are separated from the Western world by difference of race, culture, and history, and the Western mind is very hard in understanding us. Therefore the testimony of a just and unprejudiced mind is always gratefully appreciated in Russia.
C. Pobedonostzeff,
“Petersburg. Président du Saint Synod.”
“I was not only pleased with Slav and Moslem, but acknowledge a large accretion to my knowledge of the subject.
Your friend, Lew Wallace, Author of ‘Ben Hur,’ and formerly Ambassador of U.S. to Constantinople.”
“I consider Slav and Moslem the clearest exposition on the Eastern Question I have ever met with.
J. Hughes, Author of the “Dictionary of Islam.”
“I regard Slav and Moslem as a very valuable contribution to the history of Russia. You are entitled to great credit for your comprehensive view of the Russian Government and people.
John Sherman,
“Washington. Senator and Diplomat, U.S.”
“Your development of the historical relations of Russia and Turkey is admirable and full of interest. In vigorous and picturesque language you have presented the other side.
John A. Kasson,
“Washington. Senator and Diplomat.”
“I find no words to express the historic breadth of your political summary, and the deep and genuine philosophy and truth of your treatment of this great drama.
Cassius Marcellus Clay, Ten years Minister of the U.S. at St. Petersburg.”
“I have read Slav and Moslem with much interest, as it contains many suggestions to fruitful thought regarding this great empire.
Andrew D. White. Legation of the U.S., St. Petersburg.”
“Slav and Moslem is written with justice, clairvoyance, and talent.
Juliette Adam.”
“I have read many books on Russia, but none met with my approval to such an extent as Slav and Moslem.... The statements and descriptions of the Russians are so correct.... During the years of my official stay I studied the people, their history and language, and know what I am talking about.
John Karel, U.S. Consul at St. Petersburg.”
“For the chapter on the Crimea alone your book deserves the thanks of all who would study the present century.
Geo. J. Lemmon, Lecturer and Publicist.”
SOME PRESS NOTICES
“Vivid historical sketches.... Eminently worthy of careful perusal.”—The Press (Philadelphia).
“The author shows an intelligent mastery of his subject.”
Herald (Boston).
“Its every sentence is clear-cut and positive.... The subjects are all treated with a vigour and boldness that rivet the attention from first to last.”
The American (Baltimore).
“The author has a surprisingly firm grasp on his subject.... Vivid, thorough, original.”
The Tribune (Salt Lake City, Utah).
“Intensely readable.... It is one of the notable books of the day.”—Commercial Gazette (Cincinnati).
“From first to last the book is one of unusual interest.”
The Chronicle (Augusta, Ga.).
“A sober and trenchant defence of Russia.”
Times Star (Cincinnati)
“Mr. Brodhead writes lucidly and discriminatingly.... Interesting and suggestive throughout.”
The Churchman (New York).
“J. Brodhead’s work on the Eastern is creating a more and more favorable impression throughout the country.”
The Press (New York).
PLYMOUTH WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS
FOOTNOTES:
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
their precedessors=> their predecessors {pg 97}
evacute Rome=> evacuate Rome {pg 111}
public shools=> public schools {pg 206}