The Express.
London, England, 1850-04-04 00:00:00

FRANCE. •
FARM, WiDiIISDAY, 6 P.M.
The does of the fitting of the National Assembly
yesterday redeemed by a brilliant display of oratory
the heavy drudgery and debuts of the debate on the
concluding chapters of the budget of public instruc-
tion. No sooner had the disunion on the next pi -
winos of the budget, the deportment of worship,
opened, than M. Jdes Fevre roes to make a Bastion
which involved one of the most knotty and menu-
ton questions of ecclesiastical government. The ae-
rates of France are divided into two classes, one of
which is irremovable by the bishops, while the info-
rior class, charged with the spiritual superintendence
of rural districts, and called desservans, or
deacons, may be deprived of their office at
the pleasure of the diocesan. The motion of Jules
Fevre proposed that this inferior clergy should be
lifted to an equal degree of independence with the
upper order of curates, and be irremovable by epis-
copal authority. The question, sport from its abstract
merits, becomes peculiarly interesting viewed in con-
nection with the republic, and with the conflicting
forces which are struggling on the one hand to
abolish all institutions which have the least relish of
democracy, and on the other to complete the triumph
of the democratic principle. Nor could it be debated
between two parliamentary athletes better matched
than the young advocate, of whom the days of February
made a statesman, and the experienced statesmic
who, to combat the progress of the same revolution,
stoops to the sophistic arts of an advocate. M. Fevre
developed with equal skill and clearness the historical
and the logical part of his argument, the tradition,
the law, and the right. Only, when he came to the
last, the better tone pervading the previous portion of
his speech gave place to some of those fervid ejacula-
tions in favour of liberty which are more suitable to
a demsgotue than to a representative of the people.
He proved distinctly that the right which he now
claimed for the rural clergy had been aright accorded
to that class from the earliest times by the great
ecclesiastical councils, and confirmed by the temporal
power under Louis XIII., XIV., and XV. Down to
89 the rural clergy were irremovable. When the
Concordat was signed in 1802 it ratified
this privilege of the same order. Bat the
organic law annexed to the Concordat drew
the distinction which now prevailed between
the two classes of psrccbial clergy. So this matter
had remained until the days of February. Mean-
while a vast number of petitions and remonstrances
had been presented to various parliaments on the
arbitrary exercise of the episcopal authority in dis-
missing members of the rural clergy. These were
submitted to the committee of worship appointed by
the Constituent Assembly. Singularly enough, that
committee, in spite of its origin, was squeamish
enough to declare their own incompetency to decide
this matter without consulting the see of Rome. This
was the most effective part of Jules Fure's speech.
The organic law dictated by Napoleon was a pure
emanation of the temporal power, and could there-
fore clearly be repealed without calling iu the
spiritual to consent. Bat more than this:
the organics laws had never been accepted by
the papal power. It was, therefore, an absurd punc-
tiliousness in the committee to refer to 'tome for
decision with regard to rescinding a law which Rome
had no finger in making, and to which she h-d re-
fused her consent. It was in fact a abdication of the
right of exclusive competency in the Assembly on •
most important point. M. Fevre clearly proved, by
precedents drawn from the reigns of the French
kings, that in the settlement of such matters of eccle-
siastical discipline they had invariably acted inde-
pendently of the holy see; and quited in particular
the famous declarations of 1682, which established
distinctly the irremovability of the inferior clergy.
Finally, he besought that republican Assembly
not to be more timid than the kings of the
seventeenth century, not to be less inclTend-
ent than the councils of the 4th and sth cen-
turies. He claimed equality before the law for
22,200 priests, who stood in this exceptional position
to wards 3,000 of their privileged colleagues. Although
the reply. of NI. Berryer it conaidered oy his admirers
one of his happiest efforts, I am at a loss to discover
any argument throughout his speech in reply to those
which have been cited above.

M. Berryer expressed his surprise at the language
of the hon. representative, who appeared to quite
misunderstand the question. What servitude or in-
equality could there be in the subordination of •
men's conscience—in the voluntary submission
which every member of the church mode, when he
entered on his sacred functions ? How did that sub-
mission strike at his liberty or independence u a citi-
zen ? As a citizen, the clergyman enjoyed all his inde-
pendence, but as • member of the church he had tic-
ctpted an authority which &Tended neither on con-
stitutions nor assemblies. What was the indispen-
sable check in that religious society called the church ?
It was the authority established by her internal
cipline ; in all times the church had been the absolute
torereign in all questions of dogma and disciplint
her discipline belonged only to herself. Every cler-
gyman, when he entered the church, was perfectly
aware that he was to resign himself to her authority ;
and if he considered his obedience a burden he wu no
Lougee fit to belong to the sacred callini which he had
chosen. The amendment of the hon. representive,
conseqnently, was not only misplaced, but was an
absolute affront to the persons whom it professel
to aid.