Chapter 382: , Laws of 1889, to read as follows (14)

In the midst of these distractions the political canvass for a
new representation of the Republic in its legislature was
carried on, and the elections were but slightly disturbed.
They went so sweepingly in favor of the Government that only
176 seats in the Chamber, out of 589, were carried by the
opposition. The victory of the Government was more complete
and decisive than the most sanguine had expected. Said a
writer in _The Fortnightly Review:_

"It is the end of the long struggle between the Republic and
its internal enemies, those Emigres de l’intérieur as M. Paul
Sabatier has happily called them. The political power of the
Church is broken forever; the parties of reaction are finally
crushed, and their future will be that of the Jacobites after
Culloden. … It may perhaps be useful to record the relative
strength of parties in the new Chamber as compared with the
old. Precise accuracy is difficult, owing to the uncertainty
as to the exact group to which a few of the deputies should be
attributed, but the following figures are as near exactitude
as possible:—

New Chamber. Old Chamber.
Ministerialists: (The _Bloc_):--
Republicans of the Left
(Alliance Démocratique
and Gauche Démocratique) 90 83

Radicals 117 98

Radical-Socialists 132 119

Independent Socialists 20 14

Total 359 314

Unified Socialists 54 41

Opposition:—
Republicans of the Centre
(Union Républicaine and Progressists) 68 97

Nationalists 30 53

Conservatives and Clericals 78 84

Total 176 234

"But the mere figures do not bring out the full significance
of the election. Even more important than the fact that only
108 Clerical and Nationalist deputies were returned is the
fact that these 108 represent, with very few exceptions, the
most ignorant and backward districts in France. Immediately
after the election the _Matin_ published an electoral map
of France, in which the districts represented by Opposition
deputies were left white. It is an instructive document. The
whole of central France is a solid mass of black, in the north
and south the white spots are few and scattered, in the east
black very greatly predominates; only in the west is there any
conspicuous show of white."

_Robert Dell,
France, England, and Mr. Bodley
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1906)._

Manifestly the majority in France approved the severance of
religious institutions from the political organization of the
State. In recognition of the fact, the General Assembly of
French Bishops, sitting soon afterwards at Paris, petitioned
the Pope, by the vote of a large majority, to permit the
forming of Public Worship Associations under the Separation
Law. The papal reply, given late in the summer, was a new
Encyclical, formally forbidding French Catholics to form such
Associations for taking the offered use of the church
buildings and property, as provided for continued exercises of
religion by the law. A little later the prohibition was
carried farther, and French Catholics were forbidden to
conform to the Associations Law of 1891, as well as to the
Separation Law.
{281}
There seems to have been a disposition in the Government to
extend, from one year to two, the period allowed for
conformity to the latter enactment; but this attitude on the
part of the head of the Church dispelled it. Accordingly, on
the 11th of December, 1906, when the term fixed by the law
expired, sequestration of the property of the vestries was
pronounced, and buildings occupied in connection with the
churches by bishops, rectors, seminaries, etc., were ordered
to be vacated with no further delay.

Before matters reached this stage M. Sarrien had resigned, on
account of ill health, and the premiership had passed to
Clemenceau. The Cabinet underwent a degree of reconstruction
soon afterwards, and the upright, courageous Picquart,
formerly Colonel, now Brigadier-General, who had stood so long
almost alone in army circles as a champion of justice to the
foully wronged Dreyfus, had been given the portfolio of War.

See, in Volume VI. of this work,
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899)

To Dreyfus himself the Republic had made all the reparation
that it could. On the 12th of July in this year its highest
court had pronounced a decision which branded with falsity and
forgery every document and the whole testimony on which he had
been convicted, and declared that "the accusation against
Dreyfus was completely unjustified." Thereupon he was
reinstated in the army with the rank of major, and not many
days later, on the spot where the ceremony of his degradation
had been performed, in 1894, he received the insignia of a
Chevalier of the Legion of Honor.

In the May elections for the Chamber of Deputies the
Socialists had been heavily reinforced, and their most
strenuous leader, M. Jaurès, was inspired to say in his
journal, L'Humanité:

"There is no more time to be lost. This time we must give the
finishing blow to the Reaction, to all parties of the past, to
Clericalism and Cæsarism. After clearing the battleground of
all its litter, the Proletariat must be able to say to the
face of the Republican Democracy, the Radical Democracy which
at last is master of public power: ‘What are you going to do
for workmen? What reforms, what guarantees, are you going to
give them? How are you going to help French society out of the
deep crisis in which it struggles? How, by what organization
of Property and Labor, will you put an end to the exploiting
of men, to the war of classes let loose by the Capitalist form
of property?’" Quoting these words, soon afterwards, a writer
in _The Atlantic Monthly_ remarked:

"Such words are not the mere rhetoric of a Parliamentary
dictator who has just suffered a year’s eclipse in the
retrograde combinations given to the Radical majority by Prime
Minister Rouvier. Almost physiologically, certainly socially,
the millions of French workmen stand over against
property-holders in a way to which there is nothing comparable
in the Northern and Western United States, with all their
labor difficulties. They form a separate class in society,
because French property-holders form an exclusive caste. It
was the middle classes, the property-holding bourgeois and the
peasant proprietors bound up with them, who profited by the
great Revolution against the privileged classes of that
day,—royalty, clergy, and nobles. During the century which has
elapsed the triumphant bourgeois have steadily persisted in
throwing around themselves a practically impenetrable wall of
legal and social privilege in their turn. And now there is a
spontaneous upheaval of the excluded, unprivileged, inferior
class."

_Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906)._

Mainly, it appears, from the prompting and the influence of
the Socialist and Labor organizations, France obtained, in
1906, a law making Sunday a day of rest from most descriptions
of industry and commerce, exceptions being made to allow
travel and transportation companies, lighting and water works,
newspaper offices, and some other performers of public
services, to continue their operations, while hotels,
restaurants, wine shops, drug stores, and the like, were
exempted from closing their doors.

See (in this Volume)
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
Woman Suffrage Movement.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
The Thrift and consequent loanable Wealth of the country.
The power that it makes for peace.

"In the world at large, however, France has also come to a
consciousness of her real power. An English financier had
already said that if the French people continue to live on the
principle, ‘where you have four sous spend only two,’ they
will end by having in their possession all the coined gold in
the world. The great portion of it which they already possess,
and the distress caused to German finance and industry by the
patriotic refusal of the united French banks to allow their
gold to be drawn until peace was secure, had a great and
probably decisive influence in the happy termination of this
entangled affair of Morocco. The floating of the latest
Russian loan has since come to show yet further the riches of
France, to which tourists alone, it is estimated, add two
billion francs in gold each year. This money power and money
need should tend to the keeping of European peace more than
all the theories of the pacifists who clamor for a disarmament
impossible to obtain."

_Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
Deposition of the insane King of Anam.

See (in this Volume)
ANAM.

FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (February).
The Papal Encyclical "Vehementer Nos."

See PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February).

FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State.
Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite
standpoints.

From the Separationist Standpoint:

"The practical question, what course the French Catholics were
to adopt when the law should go into effect, was first
answered by the pope in his encyclical Gravissimo, published
August 10, 1906, eight months after the promulgation of the
law. The gist of the document is in two sentences: ‘After
having condemned as was our duty this iniquitous law, we
examined with the greatest care whether the articles of the
aforesaid law would leave at least some means of organizing
religious life in France so as to rescue the sacred principles
upon which rests the Holy Church.’ Having consulted the
bishops, and addressed 'fervent prayers to the Father of
Light,’ the pope came to the following conclusion:

‘As for the associations of worship, as the law organizes
them, we decree that they can absolutely not be formed without
violating the sacred rights which are the very life of the
church.’

{282}

"Is there any other form of association which might be both
legal and canonical? Pius X did not see any. Therefore, as
long as the law remained as it was, the Holy Father forbade
the French Catholics to try any form of association which did
not promise, in an ‘unmistakable and legal manner, that the
divine constitution of the church, the immutable rights of the
Roman pontiff and the bishops, as well as their authority over
the property necessary to the church, especially over the
sacred edifices, will be forever insured in those
associations.’ …

"For this decision there were, from the ecclesiastical point
of view, three grounds. One was the failure of the law of 1905
to recognize, in so many words, the authority of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Another was the abrupt fashion in
which the French government broke off its diplomatic relations
with the Vatican. The fact that the government consistently
ignored the pope during the drafting of the bill was a third.
…

"Under what regime the churches were to live was at first
somewhat uncertain; but M. Briand speedily discovered in
existing legislation all that was needed to insure the
continuance of religious worship. He was willing to admit that
the church was not obliged to avail herself of the privileges
that the new law provided for her. Law imposes duties on
citizens, but it does not force them to make use of rights or
privileges. Everything that is not forbidden is lawful. … The
minister stated that the priests could make use of the
churches after having filed such an application or declaration
as is required for ordinary meetings by the law of 1881. These
declarations would be valid for a whole year instead of for
one meeting. But under this regime the priests would be simply
temporary occupants of the buildings of worship without any
legal title.

"This compromise proved no more satisfactory to the Vatican
than the law of 1905. …

"The pope refused to sanction this arrangement. He objected to
the scheme of yearly declaration. In the first place he
complained that this broad interpretation of the law on public
meetings was merely a personal fancy of M. Briand which might
not bind his successors. In the second place, the dignity of
the priests did not allow them to accept the humiliating
position of simple occupants of the churches. …

"The government, however, could not leave several million
Catholics in a position in which opportunity to perform their
religious duties depended upon uncertain texts and the
circulars of a temporary minister of worship. It therefore set
out to draft a bill that would be acceptable to the church
without any recourse to the discarded associations of worship.
The new bill was submitted to Parliament December 15, 1906;
was accepted by the Chamber December 21 and by the Senate
December 29, and was promulgated January 2, 1907. …

"Most of the privileges granted in the law of 1905 are
withdrawn; and the law of associations of 1901, combined with
the law of public meetings of 1881, forms the basis of the new
regime. …

"Of all the catastrophes prophesied or feared by foes or
friends none has occurred. The new regime so violently
attacked in and out of France is being gradually acclimated."

_Othon Guerlac,
The Separation of Church and State in France
Political Science Quarterly, June, 1908._

FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State.
Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite
standpoints.

From the Standpoint of the Church:

"The third meeting of the French episcopate, held at the
Château de la Muette, Paris, January 15-19, resulted in a
declaration (approved by the Holy See) of their unanimous
consent to essay the organization of public worship in
churches to be placed at the Bishops’ disposal free; an
essential condition being a legal contract (authorized by
Government) between themselves or their clergy and the
Prefects or Mayors to whom such churches (sequestrated in
December) have been handed or will be handed over; the
contract to be for a term of eighteen years, during which term
(being fixed by the common law of municipal leases of communal
properties) neither Mayors nor Prefects shall in any way
interfere either in parochial administration or in regard to
the conditions of occupancy of the edifices, which must be, as
regards police, under control of the priest in charge, the
mayor intervening only on grave occasions when his official
duties require him according to law to re-establish disturbed
order.

"This document, published on January 29, was immediately, with
a form of contract, sent by each Bishop to the Parish priests
in his diocese with a request to be informed immediately
whether the proposed contract would be entered into by their
respective mayors, and instructing them if possible to get it
signed at once and return it to the Bishop. Of course, from
every parish where Catholics are strong and zealous the signed
contracts were quickly obtainable or obtained. But so soon as
the Minister of Worship learned these proceedings, he
circularized the Prefects of France on February 1:

"‘You will shortly receive instructions concerning the
application of the Article in the Law of January 2, 1907,
providing that free use of Communal buildings intended for
worship, and of their fittings, may, subject to the
requirements of Article 13 in the Law of 9 December, 1905, be
accorded by an administration act of the mayors to the
ministers of worship specified in declarations of
worship-meetings. It is extremely urgent, to prevent mayors
being entrapped into giving their signatures, that you should
telegraphically warn them, they are not entitled to enter into
a contract of this kind without preliminary deliberation by
their municipal council, and that they should, pending the
vote of that body, confine themselves, if asked for it, to
giving an acknowledgment of receipt of any request for use of
edifices they may have received. You will also assure them
they shall at a very early date receive instructions defining
the conditions to be observed to render such contracts valid,
and will direct them to do nothing until those instructions
reach them.’

"It is due to M. Briand to acknowledge: first, that he lost no
time whatever in fulfilling this promise; second, that his new
circular on the application of the law of January 2, 1907,
which bears date Paris, February 3rd, and was published the
following evening, lays down regulations concerning the leases
of Churches and Communal Chapels which on the face of these
are fair, reasonable, and likely to be universally acceptable.
{283}
The main conditions are, approval of the agreements by the
municipal councils, failing which mayors cannot enter into
them; maximum term to be eighteen years; the lessee (whether a
curé, or a worship association) to keep the buildings in
proper repair; leases for longer periods than eighteen years
to be sanctioned by the prefect; that the curé acts by
permission of his ecclesiastical superior may be stated in the
lease, but such superior is not to be entitled in any way,
once the document is signed, to interfere, or exercise
authority. …

"In Paris the appearance of the circular was hailed with
satisfaction by Catholics and reasonable men. … Cardinal
Richard deems it proper and useful to direct his priests to
make the declaration, after the contract is duly signed, and
when His Eminence shall authorize them to make it. …

"His Eminence lost no time in submitting to the Protestant
prefect of the Seine, M. de Selves, a draft lease of the Paris
Cathedral (Notre Dame) and the historical St. Denis Basilica.
It was understood that, if settled and signed, this contract
should serve as the model to be followed in the remaining
eighty-five French dioceses. The Cardinal Secretary of State
at the Vatican authorized these negotiations, against his
personal judgment, without any illusions as to the result,
simply to satisfy the French episcopate and a minority in the
Sacred College. …

"After negotiations extending over three weeks, the Prefect
informed the Cardinal (in writing, on February 23) that His
Eminence’s proposals were inacceptable, but the government
invited amended ones based on ministerial declarations made in
the Chamber during a stormy debate on February 19, when M.
Briand found himself forced to confess the churches were left
open in view of the truth that a parliamentary majority had
‘no right to hinder millions of Catholic compatriots from
practising their religion.’ The Cardinal Archbishop replied
immediately that the text of the draft submitted embodied the
extreme limits of possible concessions."

_J. F. Boyd,
The French Ecclesiastical Revolution
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, January-April, 1907)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Effects of the Separation Law.
The Catholics of France lose all Legal Organization.

"The Church Separation Law has failed to do the particular
work for which it was voted by the preceding Parliament.
Catholic citizens have chosen to undergo its penalties, with
new pains and reprisals voted by the present Parliament,
rather than accept that civil reorganization of their religion
which it imposed on them. The result has been to deprive
French Catholics, not only of the church property which had
been restored to them after the confiscations of the
Revolution, but also of all church property of whatever kind,
even such as had since been gathered together by their private
and voluntary contributions. It is impossible to foresee how
they are legally to constitute new church property for
themselves. By the automatic working of separation, Catholics,
so far as any corporative action might be intended, are left
quite outside their country’s laws.

"The Associations Law had previously suppressed their
religious orders and congregations, that is, all those
teaching and other communities which combined individual
initiatives into a working power for their religion. In virtue
of that law, their convents and colleges and the other
properties of such religious associations have ‘reverted’ to
the State, which is gradually liquidating them for its own
purposes.

"No example of temporal sacrifices for religion’s sake on such
a scale has been seen since Catholics in the France of the
Revolution chose to lose all, in many cases life itself,
rather than accept the schismatical civil constitution of
their clergy, which was accompanied by a like nationalizing of
all their church property."

_Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1907)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Rapid Development of the Syndicalist Labor Union Movement.
The Confederation Generate du Travail.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1907.

FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Popular Vote on the Greatest Frenchman of the
Nineteenth Century, awarding the distinction to Louis Pasteur.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.

FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (May-July).
The revolt of the Wine-growers of the Midi.

From various causes, the wine-growers of Southern France have
suffered from an increasing decline in the market for their
products. They attributed this wholly to the extensive
manufacture of adulterated and counterfeited wines, though it
came partly, without doubt, from the increasing use of beers
and spirituous liquors among the French. The struggling
cultivators of the grape, who could hardly obtain a living
from their vineyards, accused the government of neglect to
make and enforce effective laws for the suppression of the
adulterating frauds. They demanded new measures for the
suppression of all vinous beverages that were not the pure
product of the grape. In the spring of 1907 their attitude
became seriously threatening; for a leader named Marcelin
Albert, having an eloquent tongue, a bold spirit, and a
capacity for command, had risen among them. Alarming
demonstrations of popular excitement occurred in the cities of
Perpignan, Montpellier, Narbonne, and others.

Then, in May, the discontented people gave formal notice that
they would refuse to pay taxes if all adulterate wine-making
was not summarily stopped by the 10th of June. At the
appointed time the threat was even more than made good, for
most of the municipal officers in the four departments of
Gard, Aude, Hérault, and the Pyrenees Orientales resigned and
the machinery of local government was dissolved. The
troublesome situation thus created was handled ably by Premier
Clemenceau. On one hand he secured new legislation from
Parliament against wine adulteration, while promptly ordering
troops to the region of revolt on the other. Marcelin Albert
and another leader, Dr. Ferroul, Mayor of Narbonne, were
arrested, and order was soon restored, though a few collisions
with turbulent crowds were attended with some loss of life.

The new laws enacted for the occasion were intended in part to
secure an annual record of the vineyard product of the country
that would enable the Government to keep knowledge of it from
the vine to the wine cask, and make fraudulent tampering with
it more difficult, at least.

{284}

FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (September).
Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial Relations
with Canada.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.

FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with Great Britain, Germany, Norway, and Russia,
guaranteeing the integrity of Norway.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.

FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with England concerning Death Duties.

See (in this Volume)
DEATH DUTIES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1907-1909.
Operation in Morocco.
Bombardment of Casablanca.
Fresh irritation of Germany.
Arbitration of the Casablanca incident.
Dethronement of Sultan Abd el Aziz by his brother, Mulai Hafid.
Franco-German Agreement.

See (in this Volume)
Morocco: A. D. 1907-1909.

FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic Agreements.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.

FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
The Situation of the Catholic Church since the Separation
of Church and State.
A Church Organization impossible.

"To question whether the Catholics in France, who have alone
done more than the Catholics in any other nation for foreign
missions and for the propagation of the faith, will succeed in
maintaining the Church in their own country by private
contributions, will perhaps arouse astonishment. Nevertheless
it may be questioned. We do not doubt the generosity of our
people, but that which does give us concern is the
impossibility of organizing any revenue which can be
permanent. … The Church would be able to surmount the
difficulty if she had endowments, revenues, or property, as in
other countries. But that of course demands some regular
organization, some corporation or some body recognized by the
laws of the country and capable of acquiring, possessing, and
exercising ordinary property rights. We cannot state too
emphatically that such an organization for the Church is not
possible to-day in France. On one side the only body
authorized by the law to look after the material side of the
religious interests is the _association cultuelle_, or
local committee of public worship, as defined and regulated by
the Law of Separation. On the other side, this _association
cultuelle_ has been declared by the Pope incompatible with
the hierarchical constitution of the Church of Rome, and the
bishops, the priests, and the Catholic laity, in obedience to
their Supreme Head, have abstained and will continue to
abstain from forming any such organization. Not only, then,
have there been no Catholic _associations cultuelles_ to
receive from the state the portion of the former religious
property (the half perhaps) which we might have kept; but
there will be none in the future to receive a gift of any
kind. In the eyes of the law there is no diocese, no parish,
no corporation representing diocese or parish. The bishop and
the pastor are only individual citizens, Messrs. So-and-So.
They cannot hold property except as individuals, and what they
might receive for religious purposes cannot be handed down to
their successors,—it must revert only to their legal heirs. In
brief, no permanent body whatever can provide for the
maintenance of public worship.

"This is the situation with its almost insurmountable
difficulties. In all probability it will be a long time before
we escape from it."

_Felix Klein,
The Present Difficulties of the Church in France
(Fortnightly Review, April, 1908)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.

FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June).
Treaty with Japan, adjusting interests of each country
in the East.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1907 (JUNE).

FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June).
Purchase of the Western Railway.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: FRANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909.
Operations in and around Morocco.
French Mauritanie.
Pushing French lines toward the West.

See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.

FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude on the question of the Austrian Annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
Socialism and the Socialist Parties.
The classes appealed to.
The leaders and the followers.

See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: FRANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
A late awakening to the need of better Technical
and Industrial Training.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
Coöperative Organization in Agriculture.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January).
Elections to one-third of the French Senate.
Success of the Socialist-Radicals.
Endorsement of the Clemenceau Ministry.

Elections to the one-third of the French Senate which goes out
every third year were held on Sunday, the 3d of January, and
resulted heavily in favor of the party which calls itself
Socialist-Radical, holding a middle ground between the extreme
Socialists and the Moderate Republicans. M. Clemenceau, the
Premier, is of this party, and his administration had given it
great strength. He was one of the Senators whose term had
expired, and his constituents of the Var re-elected him by a
majority of 390, 46 more than they had formerly given him. Of
the 103 Senators chosen at this election the
Socialist-Radicals and Radicals (who work together) won 60,
giving them secure control of the Senate, where the Moderate
Republicans had been holding the balance of power. The latter
lost eighteen seats, while the Conservatives or Reactionists
of the Right added 1 to the 4 they had previously held. The
strength in France of a politically and practically restrained
sympathy with the economic ideas of Socialism was proved
signally in this election.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January).
Amended Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial
Relations with Canada.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March).
Appointment of Abbé Loisy to the Professorship of the
History of Religions in the College of France.

Early in March, 1909, the Abbé Loisy, most conspicuous of the
"Modernists" who had been condemned and denounced by the Pope,
was appointed by the Minister of Public Instruction to be
Professor of the History of Religions in the College de
France, filling the chair vacated by the death of M. Réville.
The appointment had been recommended by the authorities of the
College, which is reputed to be an institution entirely
devoted to "disinterested scientific research." Nevertheless,
the choice was looked upon at once as being prompted by a
motive of offensive antagonism to the Papacy.
{285}
The Abbé has had distinction for years among the masters of
the higher criticism, and five of his books were placed on the
"Index" by the church in 1903. The propositions characterized
as "Modernism" and condemned by the Pope in 1907 were largely
drawn from his writings. The Abbé replied to the condemnation,
and was excommunicated.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-May).
Serious strike of Government employés in the Telegraph and
Postal Service.
Overcome by the firmness of the Government.
Disciplinary proceedings.
Court decision against Trade Unions among
employés of the State.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-MAY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-June).
Report of Parliamentary Commission on the Naval Administration.
Alarming conditions.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (April).
Reported reanimation of Clerical Anti-Republicanism.

"I learn on excellent authority," said an English
correspondent of the Press, writing from Paris in April, "that
the leaders of anti-clericalism in the French political world
are becoming somewhat concerned as to the rapid recrudescence
of the political religious orders, which, although suppressed,
are somehow managing to reestablish themselves in France. As
was recently pointed out by M. André Mater, in a Volume, ‘La
Politique Religieuse de la République Française,’ published
under the auspices of the ‘Committee for the defence abroad of
the religious policy of France,’ the French monks, and not the
French Bishops and priests, were almost entirely responsible
for the Vatican’s refusal to accept the three Separation Laws
which M. Briand, the then Minister of Public Worship, framed
in a conciliatory spirit towards the Roman Catholic Church,
and often with the assistance of the French Bishops
themselves. The French Government will certainly not allow the
religious orders to revive the old campaign of
anti-Republicanism, which has, in the opinion of many French
Roman Catholics, done so much to compromise the interests of
Roman Catholicism in this country."

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June).
Earthquake on the Mediterranean coast.

See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: FRANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June-July).
Revised Naval Programme.
Changes in the Department of the Marine.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
Discussion of the Navy Report in the Chamber of Deputies.
M. Clemenceau’s outbreak of passion.
His flings at M. Delcassé resented by the Chamber.
He is driven from office by its vote.
His Successor, M. Briand, and the New Cabinet.
A Socialist Statesman at the head of the Government.

When the report of the Parliamentary Commission on the Navy
and the Naval Administration came up for discussion in the
Chamber of Deputies, in July, it brought about the overthrow
of Prime Minister Clemenceau and his Cabinet in a singular
way.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

The report itself had not been seriously threatening to the
stability of the Ministry. Responsibility for the weaknesses
found in the Naval administration belonged evidently, in large
measure, to the predecessors of M. Clemenceau and his
colleagues, and they were united in maintaining that M.
Picard, who held the Marine portfolio, had done all that could
be done since he came to office towards reforming his
department. M. Picard himself spoke with an aggressive
boldness of self-justification in the debate. His speech, made
on the 20th of July, called out M. Delcassé, president of the
investigating Commission, who mounted the tribune and
delivered an attack on the Government, fierce with the
animosities of a long antagonism between M. Clemenceau and
himself. This angered the Premier to a degree, apparently,
which overpowered his usually clear judgment, and he retorted
in a speech which taunted M. Delcassé with references to that
Morocco affair in which he and France were subjected to
mortifications at the hands of Germany.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906).

It is a matter on which sore feeling exists naturally in
France, and concerning which the sympathy of the nation is
with M. Delcassé. Hence the Chamber resented Clemenceau’s
allusions to it, and Delcassé was cheered when he made a
passionate but dignified reply. The Premier would have needed
to be blind if he did not see that his own party was against
him in the tone he had given to the controversy; and yet he
proceeded to a repetition of the taunt he had flung at his
opponent before. What followed was thus described to the
readers of the London _Times_ the next morning, by its
Paris correspondent:

"M. Clemenceau rose in face of a hostile Chamber, which had
been profoundly impressed by M. Delcassé, although on entering
the Palais Bourbon before the debate this afternoon not a
single member of the House had contemplated the possibility of
a division which would entail the fall of the Ministry and
expose all parties to the necessity of readjustments of
electoral arrangements under a new and untried Cabinet within
less than a year of the general election. M. Clemenceau said:—

"‘M. Delcassé has taken a great deal of trouble not to reply
to the only question which I put to him—namely, you were
Minister and you followed a policy which was bound to carry us
to one of the greatest humiliations.’

"It seemed, as one gazed down upon the House, that the entire
Chamber leapt as one man in indignant repudiation of this
sentence, which, moreover, had been truncated by this
spontaneous and concerted interruption. When the noise of the
slamming desks had died down, M. Clemenceau was heard to say:

"‘Oh, a truce to false indignation, I beg of you. You led us,
M. Delcassé, within a hair’s breadth of war and you did
nothing to prepare for any such policy by taking military
precautions. Everybody is aware that the Ministers of War and
of Marine were questioned, and that they declared that we were
not ready. (Loud protests.) I have not humiliated France, M.
Delcassé humiliated her.’

"As M. Clemenceau returned to his place, there could be no
doubt as to the temper of the House. A division was
immediately announced on an order of the day of confidence,
proposed by M. Jourde and accepted by the Government.

{286}

"The vote took place on priority in favour of this order of
the day amid the liveliest agitation. By 212 votes to 176
priority was rejected. As soon as the President had read out
the figures, M. Clemenceau and the Ministers rose, and leaving
the Government Bench filed out into the lobbies. Loud cheers
from the Right and the Extreme Left followed them to the door.
It was the fall of the Ministry which has enjoyed the longest
lease of life of any under the Third Republic.

"After holding a consultation at the Palais Bourbon, the Prime
Minister and his colleagues immediately proceeded to the
Elysee in order formally to tender their resignation.
President Fallières, who was at dinner and who had not heard
the result of the vote in the Chamber, was taken by surprise
and expressed regret at the departure of M. Clemenceau, with
whom he had collaborated so long. The short interview, which
lasted only ten minutes, concluded with a formal request on
the part of the President that M. Clemenceau and his
colleagues would continue to discharge the duties of their
respective Departments until the appointment of their
successors."

Though his colleagues went out of office with him, it was M.
Clemenceau, alone, who could be said to have "fallen." Even
that characterization of the occurrence was criticised by one
of his opponents, who said: "M. Clemenceau did not fall; he
plunged out of office." "The Chamber had no intention of
upsetting the Government," said one of the Republican journals
of Paris, "and an hour earlier, in fact, had loudly cheered
the Minister of Marine, M. Picard." In these circumstances it
was certain that the change of Ministry would make little
change in the character or policy of the Government. It did,
in fact, make no extensive change in even the personnel of the
Ministry; for six members of the Cabinet of M. Clemenceau
reappeared in its successor, and these included the new
Premier, M. Aristide Briand.

The choice of M. Briand for leadership in the Government
appears to have been made by a common consensus of opinion
that he was the one man pointed to by all the circumstances of
the case. As Minister of Public Worship he had shown a
temperateness of disposition and a political capacity, in
steering the country through the stormy achievement of the
separation of the State from the Church, which won high
admiration and esteem both at home and abroad. He had been
known as distinctly a Socialist, according to the full meaning
of the term in France, and had come into public life with the
prejudices raised against that brand of radicalism to contend
with. But he had given good proof that he could be practically
a statesman as well as theoretically a Socialist, and France
appeared to be fully willing to see the helm of Government put
into his hands. He is the first fully professed Socialist to
attain that position in a great State. In making up his
Cabinet he called into it two others of his own Socialist
sect, namely, M. Millerand, to be Minister of Public Works,
Posts, and Telegraphs, and M. Viviani to be Minister of Labor,
as he had been before. For himself he retained the Ministry of
Public Worship, and, with it, the Ministry of the Interior. Of
other important departments of the Government, that of Foreign
Affairs was reassumed by M. Pichon and that of Public
Instruction by M. Domergue. General Brun became Minister of
War and Admiral Boué de Lapcyrère, Minister of Marine. The
Cabinet appears to have been generally recognized as one of
exceptional strength.

On the 27th of July the new Premier spoke as such to the
Chamber of Deputies for the first time, and did so, it was
manifest, with impressive effect. "If I deemed my person to be
an element of discord in the Republican party," he said, "I
should ask you not to follow me. I could not suppose that
serious men would come to ask me to sort out, as it were, from
my old ideas those which experience has confirmed within me
and those which it has made me discard. If I had been base
enough to do that, my interpellators would be right if they
refused me their confidence. I come before you just as I am, a
man whom you all know. I have been working with you of the
majority for the last seven years. You know that I am not
afraid of ideas, and that my way of thinking is daring. The
Republic seems to me to be the germ of all progress, but I
admit only such ideas as are feasible. _Je suis un homme de
réalisation._ Those who have watched me know that full
well. If there be among you any who are still ignorant of
these facts, let them vote against me. I have as yet no
mandate from you. Tonight I may have one, but at present there
is still time for you to refuse to invest me with one."

At the close of the Premier’s address a motion of confidence
was made, and carried by 306 votes against 46.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
French Deputies to lose pay when not in attendance
at the Chamber.

Voting by proxy is permitted in the French Chamber of
Deputies, and this encourages absenteeism. To correct that
result a remarkable rule was adopted by the Chamber at its
session of July 17. "The Socialist Deputy for the Cher, M.
Berton, aided by the Socialist Radical M. Dumont, induced the
House to adopt, by 441 votes to 77, a measure in virtue of
which ‘any Deputy who shall not have signed during six
consecutive sittings a certificate of attendance shall be
regarded as being absent without permission’ and deprived of
his pay. M. Pelletan, ex-Minister of Marine, who is, with men
like M. Brisson, President of the Chamber, the type of the old
Parliamentary hand of the Republican _régime_, protested
in vain against a conception of Parliamentary work which, as
he said, humiliated the representatives of France to the
position of schoolboys who have to be ruled with a rod of iron
lest they play truant. M. Brisson himself pointed out that the
proposal of the Socialist Deputies was seriously wanting in
respect for the national sovereignty, and he reminded his
colleagues that mere attendance in the Chamber was by no means
the only, nor necessarily the most effective, way of doing
one’s duty as Deputy.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
The Pensioning of State Railway Employés.
The Pending Workman’s Pension Bill.

See (in this Volume)
POVERTY: ITS PROBLEMS: FRANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Abrogation of Commercial Agreements with the United States.

See (in this Volume)
TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Clerical attack on the Secular or Neutral Schools.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.

{287}

FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (November).
Contemplated Reform in Criminal Court Procedure.

See (in this Volume)
LAW AND ITS COURTS: FRANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1910.
Destructive Floods in France, most seriously
in and around Paris.

Many parts of France suffered heavily from extraordinary
floods in the later half of January and the early days of
February, 1910; but Paris had the worst of the calamity to
bear. In its long history the city has been cruelly dealt with
many times by the waters of the Seine, which its quays and
bridges constrict and obstruct; but this latest experience
proved nearly the climax. It was comparable, at least, with a
historic flood that dates back to 1615. Large districts were
uninhabitable for days; half the streets and squares of the
city were under water: foundations of many of the grandest
buildings were being sapped, while sewers, subways, and
pavements were extensively destroyed. It was not until the
beginning of February that any subsidence of the waters
occurred, and far into the month before much restoration of
conditions could be taken in hand. The suffering meantime was
very great and the pecuniary damage immense.

----------FRANCE: End--------

FRANCO, JOÃO:
His drastic Government of Portugal.

See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.

FREDERICK VIII.:
Succession to the Crown of Denmark.

See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1906.

FREE CHURCH, of Scotland.

See (in this Volume)
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.

FREE ZONE, Mexican:
Its abolition.

For an account of the Free Zone:

See Volume VI. of this work,
MEXICAN FREE ZONE.

It went out of existence in 1905.

See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.

FRIEDJUNG CASE, The.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

FRIARS’ LANDS, Governmental purchase of the.

See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902-1903.

FRY, Sir Edward.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: England: A. D. 1907-1909.

FULLER, Sir Bampfylde, Resignation of.

See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909.

FULTON CELEBRATION.

See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.

FURNESS, Sir Christopher:
His plan of Profit-sharing with Workmen.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.

G.

GAELIC LEAGUE.

See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.

GAGE, Lyman J.

See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.

GALSTER, Vice-Admiral:
Argument for Submarines against "Dreadnoughts."

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.

GALVESTON PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. DES MOINES PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: GALVESTON.

GAMBLING:
Its suppression in Siam.

See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1905.

GAMBLING: Race-track:
Legislation for its Suppression in the State of New York.

See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1908.

GAMBLING:
Legislation for its Suppression in Louisiana and
the District of Columbia.

In June, 1908, Louisiana followed the example of New York in
passing an Act for the suppression of race-track gambling.
There, as in New York, only exactly enough votes to pass the
bill were secured; one Senator was present for the final vote
in spite of illness which subjected him to the most serious
inconvenience, and one Senator had to be sought by messenger
with a motor-car and brought by an all-night ride ninety miles
through the Louisiana marshes. Within a few months past the
gamblers of the race track had been similarly placed under the
ban of the law in the District of Columbia.

GAMBLING:
Its Suppression in Japan.

The following was reported from Tokio, March 27, 1909:

"A tremendous effort has been made by the race-track element
in Japan to induce the government to retract and permit
betting upon the tracks, but Marquis Katsura, the premier, has
stood firm, and, for another year, at least, the race tracks
of the Empire will be without their favorite Pari Mutuel or
any other form of betting. This means in Japan practically an
end of horse-racing, and necessarily a heavy loss to the
stockholders in the various race tracks. The development of
racing in Japan was extremely rapid. From a single course
established at Yokohama by foreigners, at least half a dozen
tracks were in full swing when gambling was prohibited. So
flagrant were the cases of fraud and so numerous the examples
of ruin brought about by reckless betting that the government
suddenly put its foot down upon the whole thing."

GAMBLING:
Stock, and other Speculative Dealing.

See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.

GAPON, Father George.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

GARCIA, Lugardo:
Deposed President of Ecuador.

See (in this Volume)
ECUADOR.

GARFIELD, HARRY A.: President of Williams College.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.

GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Commissioner of Corporations and Secretary of the Interior.

See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1909.

GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Investigation of the "Beef Trust," so-called.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.

GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Investigation of the Standard Oil Company, and Report.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.

GASOLINE ENGINE.

See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION.

GATUN DAM.

See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.

GAUNA, JUAN:
Revolutionary President of Paraguay.

See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.

GAUTSCH, BARON.

See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.

{288}

GAYNOR, WILLIAM J.

See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D). 1909.

GEAY, Bishop.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.

GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.

"GENERAL SLOCUM," Burning of the.

See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1904.

GEORGE, David Lloyd.

See (in this Volume)
LLOYD-GEORGE, DAVID.

GEORGE V., KING OF GREAT BRITAIN:
His accession to the Throne.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (MAY).

GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC.

See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.

GEORGEI POBIEDONOSETS, MUTINY ON THE.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1908.
Abolition of the Convict Lease System.

See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1908.
Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1909.
Railroad Strike.

See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.

GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909.

GERMAN EAST AFRICA:
Its parts suitable for European Settlement.

See (in this Volume)
AFRICA.

GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA.

See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: GERMAN COLONIES.

----------GERMANY: Start--------

GERMANY:
Industrial Combinations, called Cartels.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: IN GERMANY.

GERMANY:
Matters relating to the Use of Alcoholic Liquors.

See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.

GERMANY:
State and Municipal Dealings with the
Problems of Poverty and Unemployment.

See (in this Volume)
POVERTY.

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.

GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.
Rise of Commercial Universities.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900.
Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.

See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.

GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (December).
Claims and Complaints against Venezuela communicated to the
United States.
The Reply.
Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.

See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA A. D. 1901.

GERMANY: A. D. 1901-1902.
Industrial Crisis and succeeding Depression.

See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: GERMANY.

GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-May).
Measures for Germanizing the Polish Provinces of Prussia.

For many years past the Prussian Government had been exerting
itself to dilute the Polish population of its Polish
provinces, by settling German colonists in them and by buying
land from Polish owners. It now assumed a more aggressive
attitude of hostility toward that portion of its subjects, as
appeared from the temper of a speech by Count Bülow in the
Prussian legislature, in January of this year, on what he
characterized as "the most important concern of Prussian
politics at the present time." German property, be said "was
steadily passing into Polish hands," and "Polish lawyers,
Polish doctors, Polish contractors, were united in the attempt
to thrust the German element into the background." In support
of the Count’s position it was averred by others in the debate
that not only was Eastern Prussia being made Polish by the
rise of a vigorous Polish middle class, but that the Poles
already formed 10 per cent of the whole population of Prussia,
and were spreading in other parts of the Empire, holding
themselves generally apart from their German neighbors and
cultivating a national patriotism of their own.

In March the Prussian Government issued orders forbidding the
admission of immigrants from Russian Poland into Prussia
unless they brought not less than 400 marks of money in hand.
Two months later a bill was brought forward appropriating
250,000,000 marks for the purchasing of land in the Polish
provinces and for settling German colonists upon it. In
connection with this measure it was reported that, since the
buying of land for these purposes began, in Posen, the Poles
had acquired more from Germans than Germans had acquired
from Poles, to the extent of 76,611 acres. Hence more money
must be put into the game if it was to be played with effect.
The money was voted, though opposition to the policy which
makes enemies of the Poles, instead of Germanizing them by
friendly treatment, made a show of much strength.

"It was in 1886 that the Iron Chancellor started the fight
against the Poles by the expulsion of more than 50,000 Polish
labourers, natives of Austria and Russia. This measure not
only hit the poor people who were driven away, it also and
principally was directed against the Polish owners of large
landed estates in the Eastern provinces, who thereafter
experienced great difficulty in obtaining the necessary number
of farm-hands. This artificial scarcity of labour, together
with the great decrease in price of agricultural products
which had just taken place, entirely ruined many owners of
large estates, and there were therefore a great number who
wanted to sell. Bismarck then appointed a Committee of
Colonisation to buy Polish estates and parcel them out to
German peasant farmers. The necessary funds were provided for
by a sum of 100,000,000 marks (equal to £5,000,000) which was
placed at the disposal of the Committee.

"At the first moment the Poles were paralysed. What were they
to do to ward off such an attack aimed at the poorest among
them? But they kept up a good heart and did the only
reasonable thing: some wealthy Polish noble men furnished a
sum of 3,000,000 marks (equal to £150,000) whereby to fight
the mighty Prussian Government, with its Committee of
Colonisation and well-nigh inexhaustible financial resources.
With this capital of 3,000,000 marks a Polish land bank was
started for the purpose of buying estates and reselling them
in small holdings to Polish colonists. …

{289}

"It maybe guessed from what is already stated that the Poles
have not only been able to maintain their former hold on the
land, but actually as peaceable conquerors are marching
triumphantly westwards. This is also the case, but we need not
restrict ourselves to a guess, the ‘_Statisches Jahrbueh für
den Preussischen Staat_’ for 1903 containing ample
corroboration of it. According to this official handbook there
were parcelled out in the years 1896 to 1901, in the Provinces
of Posen and West Prussia, 7,828 estates by German activity,
containing 617,200 hectares, and 9,079 estates by Polish
activity, containing 213,700 hectares. Although the Germans
have parcelled out a very considerably larger area, the Poles
have bought and parcelled out a far greater number of
properties. The advantage thus obtained is put into an even
stronger light when we learn that during the same period by
this parcelling out there have been created only 15,941 German
farms, with an area of 155,200 hectares, as against 22,289
Polish farms, with an area of 95,800 hectares, for these
figures show that during these six years more than 6,000
Polish homes have been established over and above the number
of German homes planted on old Polish soil. Moreover the
advantage thus gained by the Poles has been increased during
the last two years."